Downing Street Says

Asked to clarify whether Sir Jeremy Greenstock had seen the ICRC report, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said a meeting had been held when ICRC personnel had presented their report to Paul Bremer and British representatives, including Sir Jeremy’s legal advisers. As a result of that meeting, the report had been sent to the relevant people in Iraq to be dealt with. It was important for people to recognise that its contents were already being acted on, which was why it had been handled in the way that it had. Confusion had arisen because we had thought that Sir Jeremy himself had read the report, when it fact he hadn’t. Asked if Sir Jeremy had notified Downing Street of the mistake, the PMOS said no. It had become apparent that there was a discrepancy between what the Defence Secretary had said yesterday and what the Foreign Secretary had said today. Yes, it was a slight mistake, but it did not change the substance of the matter one iota. Asked how the error had come to light, the PMOS said that as he understood it, a member of the Opposition had spotted the discrepancy today and had pointed it out. Asked at what stage Sir Jeremy had finally found out about the ICRC report, the PMOS said that Sir Jeremy had always been aware of the report. He underlined the fact that it had not contained any new allegations about British troops that were not already being dealt with. That was why Ministers had not been informed of it. Put to him that Sir Jeremy would surely had warned the Prime Minister about it, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any such conversations.

Asked repeatedly if anyone had been aware of the substance of the allegations made by the Red Cross apart from Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s legal advisers and officials in London who had received the report from Sir Jeremy’s office, the PMOS pointed out that the Red Cross tended to deal with one country at a time when drafting reports. Both President Bush and the Prime Minister had made clear their shared view about the mistreatment of prisoners. It was for other Governments to deal with Red Cross reports relating to their own troops. Put to him that the ICRC’s interim report in February had talked about ‘Coalition Forces’, the PMOS pointed out that the report had been presented to the CPA, not to the British Government. Officials had been asked by the CPA to deal with those concerns pertaining to British troops, which was precisely what they had done.

Asked if officials had been given a full copy of the ICRC report containing allegations about US troops as well as British forces, the PMOS said that officials had seen the report and had dealt with those concerns relating to British troops. Asked what British officials had known about other allegations, the PMOS said that the confidentiality under which the Red Cross operated meant that officials had responded in the way they had. The report was therefore a matter for the Red Cross. Asked if he was suggesting that Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s legal advisers had decided not to pass on the concerns about US troops raised by the ICRC in their report because the Red Cross considered the confidential terms of their modus operandi as sacrosanct, the PMOS said that the officials had acted on their understanding of the Red Cross’s very strict rules. We would welcome the publication of the ICRC’s February and April reports. However, we had to abide by the wishes of the Red Cross.

Put to him repeatedly that there would be no breach of confidence were British officials to ask US officials what measures were being taken to prevent the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in the light of the fact that both sides had seen the same report, the PMOS said that the Red Cross gave us information relating to the conduct of our detention centres and the people we had detained. It was our responsibility to act within the parameters set out by the Red Cross. Asked if he was suggesting that we had not known about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US troops, the PMOS said that he was simply setting out the terms under which we operated when dealing with the Red Cross. Put to him that it seemed ridiculous that the Coalition had gone into Iraq to stop the abuse and yet we were unable to do so all because of the Red Cross’s commitment to confidentiality, the PMOS said that he was not a spokesman for the Red Cross. All he could do was explain the circumstances in which officials had found themselves. In answer to further questions, the PMOS took the opportunity to point out that action had been taken both by the British and the US as a result of the ICRC report. In the end that was what was most important. As the Prime Minister had underlined many times recently, the mistreatment of prisoners was wrong, was not to be condoned and was entirely counter-productive. That was the factual position.

Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with the Foreign Secretary’s view that in hindsight it would have been better had Ministers been told about the report, the PMOS said that as he had said this morning, there were always lessons to be learned in Government, as the Foreign Secretary had articulated today. Both the Prime Minister and President Bush had condemned in completely unambiguous terms the mistreatment of any prisoner and had underlined that such things should not happen. It was also important for people to recognise that this was not something which characterised the entire Coalition Force in Iraq. The Coalition was there to stop abuse. As General Sir Mike Jackson had said when the allegations had first appeared, we welcomed any evidence of mistreatment so that it could be properly assessed and acted upon if necessary. That position had not changed.

Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the Arab world distinguished between the conduct of the different countries comprising the Coalition, the PMOS said that as he had told journalists repeatedly this morning and over the last two days, the Prime Minister in no way under-estimated the damage done by allegations of mistreatment. That was why he had made it plain to everyone that he believed it was important for prisoners to be treated properly.

Asked if any action had been taken to ensure that future Red Cross reports would be brought to the attention of Ministers, the PMOS said that obviously there would have to be a discussion about this matter. It was not up to the Government to decide whether ICRC reports could be published more widely.

Asked if the Prime Minister had been shocked to discover that US troops had been involved in the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners or if he had known what was going on prior to publication of the allegations and pictures in the media, the PMOS said that allegations of mistreatment should not have come as a surprise to anyone, including the media, because of the well known case of the man who had unfortunately died in custody. Equally, the fact that investigations were taking place should not have come as any surprise because that had been confirmed. However, what Ministers had not known about was the Red Cross report – and that was the basis on which we had been answering questions. Asked if Ministers had known about the scale of the alleged abuse, the PMOS said that any allegations which had been made had been investigated, as you would expect. As the Prime Minister had made clear, such activity would not be tolerated. It was wrong and counter-productive. Asked if he was implying that the Prime Minister had known what US troops were up to before the press had got hold of the story, the PMOS cautioned journalists against putting words into his mouth. As he had said, it had been widely known that allegations of mistreatment had been made and that they were being investigated.

Asked repeatedly if the Prime Minister had been aware of allegations of torture and ‘systemised humiliation’ in the Abu Ghraib prison before the photos had appeared in the media, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had always made it clear that mistreatment of any kind was wrong. Pressed by BBC News 24 to stop treating journalists like idiots and answer the question, the PMOS said that he would never treat journalists like idiots. He was trying to answer questions politely, regardless of the way they were being asked. He thought that a bit of civility wouldn’t go amiss. The answer to the question was that if the Prime Minister was aware of anything untoward, he would of course act accordingly. He had always made it clear that any mistreatment was wrong and counter-productive. It went without saying that these actions went against the values of the Coalition.

Asked when people would know that the Prime Minister was becoming a liability in the light of today’s report in the Guardian, the PMOS said that as a Civil Servant he was unable to comment on party matters.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

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

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries