Downing Street Says » Prime Minister’s press conference

[This is the transcript of one of the Prime Minister’s occasional press conferences; these
are the words of the Prime Minister giving a statement and answering the
questions of journalists. Unlike the PMOS’s briefings, this is a more-or-less
verbatim transcript of the Prime Minister’s words. Such press conferences
happen about once a month, and occasionally more often.]

Prime Minister

Good Morning everyone. Before I take your questions – and I recognise you will obviously want to ask about Iraq – I would like to say something first of all about today’s asylum figures and public service delivery in general. These asylum figures show that the dramatic progress that we made last year when we halved asylum applications has actually continued. They fell a further 20% in the first quarter of this year, or very nearly, and I would like to pay tribute to all the staff that have made this happen. As you know, for some time there has been a debate about the integrity of these figures. Some people have queried the fall in numbers and asked whether the progress was real, were we understating, were we simply moving people from one stream of entry into the country into another, and I have always been confident that the improvements in our asylum system are indeed genuine, but earlier this year we asked the National Audit Office – the independent watchdog – to look at the reliability of these figures and today we have that verdict. The progress is real. The 61% fall in applications since October 2002 is genuine. Asylum applications have not been pushed into other managed migration categories, as has sometimes been intimated. Abuse of the asylum problem was a problem that is being gripped and today’s figures show the reality of that. We also recognise however that there is still much to do and we must maintain the pressure, particularly on asylum removals. The National Audit Office also identify some areas where the government could improve the way we collect and present asylum data. We will act on those recommendations. It is also vital that the government’s statistics are clear and transparent, but it is clear, thanks to the important work that has been done by the National Audit Office, that this progress is real, there is much more to do but the progress is indeed real.

I would like to emphasise however that this is not a one-off and actually in the past few weeks we have seen evidence of public service delivery across the piece. The labour market figures now show that around about almost 2 million extra jobs have been created in the British economy and the welfare to work programme has reduced long term unemployment, particularly amongst young people, to a fraction of what it was a few years ago. On health we have had the report not just from the Chief Executive of the Health Service, but also from the modernisation board of the National Health Service that is made up of the stakeholders in the Health Service, who are independent people with their own position, and their findings that there is consistent and clear improvement in the National Health Service are also reflected in both waiting time and waiting list figures.

The most recent crime figures indicate that although, as I was saying last week, there is a problem with alcohol-related crime and in particular violent crime, nonetheless overall crime is steady or falling, and there are record numbers of police and community support officers as well.

The teacher workforce figures again show, contrary I think to some of the prognosis that was given a short time ago that teacher numbers were going to fall, indicates that there are substantially more teachers now in our teaching workforce than a few years ago, and there has also been a dramatic rise in the number of teaching assistants and classroom assistants.

Now all of this does not mean that everything is perfect, indeed there is still a great deal more to do in each of these areas, but I think that underneath the issues that have understandably dominated the headlines over the past few weeks, there is real evidence both of public service improvement in delivery, rising living standards and more jobs and that is good news for Britain.

Question

Prime Minister, as anticipated, Iraq. A two part question if I may. The Iraqi Governing Council has just said that the draft resolution put down is below expectations as far as they are concerned. I would just ask you to respond to that. But also on Iraq, looking at the security situation, isn’t the truth that we are going to be there in substantial numbers for a very long time to come, we will have troops there for years and we will be putting money in for many years to come, and it might not be politically convenient to discuss that, but isn’t that the honest truth and shouldn’t you be open about it?

Prime Minister

First of all in relation to the Iraqi Governing Council, I just saw that in a little clip coming up in the news myself, and actually I understand the actual statement from the Iraqi Governing Council is a lot more positive than that, they actually basically welcome the draft resolution but they say there are certain deficiencies that they want to see corrected. Now obviously that is something that we discuss with them, but I think that the overall position is that the draft resolution has been basically certainly welcomed as a sound basis for getting a UN resolution. As for the issue of British troops, we must remain with this task in Iraq until the job is done because it is now of central importance to Iraq, to the wider region, to the stability of the world, and if we can achieve a democratic and stable Iraq, as I believe that we can, despite the difficulties, then that is a huge bonus for security and stability everywhere. Now the timing on the question of British or coalition troops remaining is a timing that is governed by the ability of the Iraqis to devise their own security forces, in police and civil defence and their army. And what we will be doing over the coming weeks is with the Iraqi government setting out how we can bring about a situation where the Iraqis themselves take control of their own security, they will have full sovereignty of course after 30 June, but how in practical terms they take control of their own security, and that is what will measure the time that we stay. So we stay until we get the job done, but obviously the sooner and the better we are able to get Iraqi security forces in charge of their own security then the easier it is for us to leave.

Question

This morning you met the Iraqi Defence Minister and he has just put his own timetable on this, talking of the multinational force being out in months, not years. Is that your hope that British forces could be home in months, not years. And on the detail of the handover, is it right that under the new arrangements that Iraqis would effectively have a veto over British and American military action that they disapproved of?

Prime Minister

First of all, can I just say this about the issue of troops because obviously, quite apart from the question of whether any troops remain, there is also the issue of how many remain. Because at the height of the conflict we had over 30,000 British troops in Iraq, it then came down to 12,000, it is now around 7,500 – 8,000. So there is a question the whole time that you must keep at the back of your mind that when we talk about how long will British troops remain, there is also the issue of how many, because they may remain in all sorts of different capacities. But the basic position is this, as the Iraqi Defence Minister was saying earlier, our position and the Iraqi position is the same, our troops should only remain as long as it is necessary for them to remain to provide the help with security that the Iraqis need in order to make sure this political transition to democracy works. So that is what governs this, and I think the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister was saying yesterday well it might be years, the Iraqi Defence Minister says it might be months, but actually if you read carefully what they are both saying, they are both saying the issue is how fast can you get a proper indigenous Iraqi security service up and running. That is what governs the timetable. And therefore the question is how fast can we do that? Now we as I say will be working very carefully and I hope that in the weeks to come we will be able to give people a clearer idea of when we think this, if you like Iraqiisation as I call it of the security services can actually take place. But in the end what the Iraqis want to do is they want to be able to run their own security. Now as for the issue of sovereignty, let me make it 100% clear. After 30 June there will be the full transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi government, therefore the people who will decide whether the troops stay or not will be the Iraqi government, they will be the people then, the Iraqis themselves with the full sovereign right of political control. And the issue of sovereignty will be completely laid to rest. There is then the issue of practical necessity which at the moment the Iraqi security forces cannot do this work of security themselves, so they need our support. But the idea is then to engage in a transition where as the Iraqi capability builds up, so our capability reduces. Now there will be a lot of hard going over the next few months, don’t be under any doubt at all about that, and I would say to you today, as President Bush said yesterday, there will be a lot of difficulties along the way because these people who are trying to stop us rebuilding Iraq, and trying to stop ordinary Iraqis rebuilding Iraq, are very determined to do it. But don’t be under any doubt at all, that transfer of sovereignty is a real transfer.

Question

To follow on from that point though the issue is if for example we have the Americans wanting to do another assault on Fallujah, will it be the situation after 30 June that the Iraqis will be able to say no you can’t, they will have a veto?

Prime Minister

I was just about to adumbrate on this point. Yes, that is the tough question. So if there is a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Fallujah in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government and the final political control remains with the Iraqi government. Now that is what the transfer of sovereignty means. That doesn’t mean to say that our troops are going to be ordered to do something our troops don’t want to do, that remains as it is now, but the transfer of sovereignty has to be real and genuine and the issue of our troops remaining after then is an issue of necessity because they have to remain until the Iraqi capability is sufficiently developed. And as I say, as that capability then develops, so we are able to resolve the situation.

Question

Given that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, do you worry that you and the Americans may have been duped by Chalabi and the Iranians into believing false intelligence? And if I can on a domestic issue, can I ask you are you worried that the electorate may use the local and European elections to register a protest vote about Iraq?

Prime Minister

People can vote in elections on the basis they want to, although in the end I think people do recognise that their local services matter, the issue of who they send to the European Parliament matters and matters in their own right. No I personally believe that the intelligence we received was accurate, I have said that to you all the way along, and the conundrum of what exactly has happened is something that I think will be resolved in due course. But what is important is to recognise sometimes when this debate has continued in the past few weeks about Iraq, it is almost as if Iraq was in a relatively benign place until we went in and invaded it and stirred up the hornet’s nest. Iraq was not in a benign place and you can see from the state of Iraq today and the problems that you have, just how completely degraded the country was – 60% of the country on food aid, the remains of 300,000 people found in mass graves, a situation where the people didn’t even have the basic freedom to use the internet if they wanted to, never mind have the type of civil rights that we take for granted in this country. Now I don’t doubt we have been through some very difficult times in the past few weeks, we have been, but I think there is a path forward both on the political and on the security front that we can see.

Question

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said this morning that the decision to send more British troops had not been taken yet, implying that there was going to be a decision to send more troops in due course. Where is the pressure to send more British troops coming from, from British commanders on the ground, or is it political pressure from President Bush? And if you do send more British troops, will you guarantee that they will be serving only under British commanders, as 84% are saying they would like the situation to be in an opinion poll today?

Well there is no question, if there were more British troops to go to Iraq they would operate in the way that they are operating now, and as you know there is a coalition force in Iraq which is headed up by an American General, but the British troops operate under British command. The issue about whether we send more troops or not, the reason why I am not being definitive is that there is no decision that has been taken. Now I have also said, which is sensible, that we keep this under continual advisement and review. There is not a question of political pressure coming on from America or anywhere else, we have got a mission to fulfil in Iraq and we have to keep under review the best way of fulfilling it, and that is how the issue of troops arises.

Question

A moment ago, in reply to Elinor, you said you believed the basic intelligence on WMD was correct and that the conundrum would be resolved. Does that mean that you still believe that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq?

Prime Minister

There are only two things that we know for sure: one is that he had weapons of mass destruction, because he used them against his own people, and used them in the Iran/Iraq war, and we had 12 years of carry on with the United Nations inspectors when they were trying to find them; and the second thing we know is that we haven’t found them in Iraq yet. So that is an issue that has to be resolved and how it will be resolved, I don’t know, we should wait maybe for the Iraqi Survey Group’s report.

Question

I wanted to ask you about President Bush’s speech last night. This is seemingly an offensive that Bush is doing right now, he is going to make 6 appearances this week kind of defending his plan in Iraq, trying to build support for the UN resolution. But for that UN resolution to work it will require international cooperation. Do you think that President Bush is such a volatile character, so loathed, such a lightning rod in the international community that he will not be able to succeed in building the goodwill that will be required for that resolution to work on the ground?

Prime Minister

I think you have already got reactions from France and Germany this morning, which are basically positive and in the right direction. And it is just worth pointing out, because we have been through a very difficult period, particularly with the terrible events at Abu Ghraib prison which have rightly been condemned by everybody, but it is worth pointing out that it is also America that is putting $20 billion into Iraq to help Iraqi people, and it is American soldiers who are in Iraq risking their lives, in some cases losing their lives, as with British soldiers and other coalition forces, to try and make the country better, and I wouldn’t ignore that fact in international opinion as well. And I believe that from the contacts certainly that we have had that the prospects of a UN resolution are good, but we have to wait and see.

Question

Going back to Iraq, just last week I was in Iraq and I spoke to 9 of the Governing Councillors and none of them trust Lakhdar Brahimi, none of them trust the outcome of the interim government and the question is what will happen to them once no longer they are members of a government that is protected by the British and Americans? And on the question of democracy, I have seen many people lack the political training of a civil society, I have seen people with arms coming through the British camp asking that we want to give up arms and become a political party. How are these people going to do that and will they be respected? So no-one seems to be giving attention to this kind of training and they look up to Britain for this kind of training.

Prime Minister

And we will help, and are helping and will do in any way that we can. And you are right, it is a huge process to take a country that was run in the brutal way it was under Saddam for many, many years, and then to go towards democracy, but it is possible to do this and what happens to the individual members of the Iraqi Governing Council, that process is best left to the Secretary General of the United Nations representative, Mr Brahimi, I think he has got to have charge of that. But in respect of how we build the institutions of civil society, we are trying to help with that already, working for example with Iraqi women’s groups, with human rights groups out in Iraq. I have got no doubt at all that once the transfer of sovereignty happens and you have then got a 6 month period of time up to the elections for the constituent assembly, when that happens then I think you will find that those political parties start to grow and operate. But sometimes I think people forget just how far back we were starting with this. This was a situation where we weren’t even starting from scratch, we were starting with all the institutions of the country degraded, the people in a position where they had basically no political rights or liberties at all, and you are right establishing that is a difficult task, but we will help as a country, and I am sure the international community will help and I think it will be a lot easier to get the right context for that once the transfer of sovereignty occurs. And then hopefully people will also see this, which is that whatever the publicity and all the problems and how they are highlighted, the fact is that the people trying to stop this process working are people who are assassinating aid workers, people who try and help make the power and electricity work in Iraq, people who are trying to help the country get better, and that is a struggle that is pretty clear to me.

Question

You said that in the weeks to come you are going to give a clearer idea of Iraqiisation taking place. Does that mean that you will be announcing a timetable for troop withdrawal? And on this very fraught question of whether to send in more troops or not, isn’t that going to be even more difficult now that you said this morning that British troops will be under the full political control of the new Iraqi government?

Prime Minister

On the latter point, no, because I think that is a situation we are perfectly familiar with. No-one can order British troops to do things they don’t want to do, and that is the case now even with the coalition, the British forces can’t be ordered by the Americans or anybody else to do what they don’t want to do, and there will obviously have to be operational issues that are determined within this overall context of the transfer of sovereignty. But the plan, I don’t know whether it will set out specific timetables or timeframes or not, it may well set out targets for the Iraqiisation, but I think the most important thing is to recognise that the timetable is governed by the accomplishment of the mission, not the other way round. So the question is how are we able to do this. At the moment I would say we have had some success in the Iraqi police and civil defence, but I think it is fair to say we have also learnt from some of the things that have happened as we have gone along, and whether the Iraqi forces are properly trained or equipped or led at the moment is a real issue that we need to resolve. Now that again is something that we need to work on with the new Iraqi government, and we will do that, but the key thing is not to set some arbitrary timetable, but to say these are the things that are going to be necessary in order to be sure that Iraq can operate in the way that it wants.

Question

There are still over 1,000 Dutch soldiers under British command in Iraq, their tour ends at the end of June. Are you happy for them to go home or have you had discussions with the Dutch government about them staying longer?

Prime Minister

The position of the Dutch troops is obviously a matter for the Dutch government, but as far as I am aware we are still working together to make sure that we give what support we can to the new Iraqi administration.

Question

Prime Minister

Well not in the last few days, but I think the position of the Dutch government remains one of firm support for the coalition.

Question

You said a moment ago that you thought that the new Iraqi government should have a veto power over special military operations after June 30. Is it your understanding that the US administration is also prepared to accept a veto power by the new Iraqi government over such operations?

Prime Minister

The transfer of sovereignty means the transfer of sovereignty, that is what it means. Let me just explain to you how operationally this works at the moment. There is a security committee that is at present headed up by the head of the CPA, by the Coalition Authority. When there is a transfer of sovereignty, that will then be headed up by the new Iraqi Prime Minister. The change of sovereignty is a genuine change of sovereignty and that is my position and that is the United States’ position. There will be obviously, certain agreements will then have to be entered into about operational requirements and we have got to make sure obviously that our own troops are properly protected in that situation. But if you like the political control shifts, the operational issues, well that has to be decided under various agreements that will be entered into no doubt, and may be decided on an operation to operation basis, that is one of the things that will be discussed, but the key thing is once that political control transfers, it transfers. The troops then remain in Iraq with the consent of the Iraqi government.

Question

I was just at an event with the IISS here in London when they did their annual report, and one of the things they said that was quite interesting is that their view is that you would need 500,000 troops in Iraq to provide security in the short or medium term. Given that we are talking, even if Britain sends a few thousand more troops, about being wildly short of that, do you accept that there needs to be a massive boost of troops in order to ensure security, and if not what can you do in order to fill the vacuum.

Prime Minister

What there needs to be, as the Iraqi Defence Minister was saying to me earlier this morning, I actually met him too incidentally and had a very useful conversation with him, is that what needs to happen is the Iraqi capability is built up. At the moment, let’s be clear about what is happening in Iraq, we are trying to make the country better and we are working with the Iraqi government to do that, but we are being subject to a huge propaganda campaign from people saying no this isn’t the purpose of what you are doing at all, the purpose is to occupy the country, you want to seize its oil, you want to stay in the country, whether the Iraqis like it or not. That is the propaganda battle against us. And what that means is that every time there is an operation by American or British troops in order to restore order, this can be presented by those opposed to us as if this was repression by an army of occupation, rather than actually help restore law and order in order to let the political process in Iraq go forward. Now what is essential is as soon as we can to give the actual operational security responsibility to the Iraqis themselves, and the reason for doing that is not merely because Iraqis should be in charge of Iraq, it is also because it should be very visible to people that what these elements are trying to do, they are not resistance fighters, what they are trying to do is to stop the Iraqi people get a proper democratic government and get the country on its feet, that is what they are trying to prevent, and the fact that you have Iraqi security people dealing with the Iraqi security issues, I think that make a big difference.

Question

Do you think that the terrible pictures that we have seen from Abu Ghraib and the videos are the result of the bad behaviour of a handful of people, or as many are arguing, part of a culture among the American military may be in some way encouraged by some politicians?

Prime Minister

I believe it is the wrong action of the individuals that have done these things. I know of no politician or political leader in the United States that is doing anything other than condemning these things unreservedly and without any hesitation or qualification at all. And the only thing I ever say to people is whilst we should condemn what has happened without any reservation at all, it is disgusting and wrong, let us not forget also the sacrifice of American soldiers, as well as British and other coalition soldiers, in trying to make the country better. And there is a whole series of things that are happening in Iraq and could happen far more quickly were the security situation better, that is designed to make the country better, and a lot of that is going to be funded, and organised, and run by Americans.

Question

I wonder, since it is referred to in today’s Times, if we could turn to your own future. Do you accept that the formula, if you stand for election you stand for a full term, is essentially meaningless about your own intentions, and wouldn’t it be better to simply be honest with the British people and say clearly if you stand for election as the leader of a party, that party has a manifesto that it will serve for a full term, but no-one expects you if you win to fight a fourth general election, therefore you might well go in the course of a third term?

Prime Minister

Thank you very much. I know this is a great parlour game for you guys, but I refer you to what I have said before and I have got nothing more to add to what I have said before. Sorry.

Question

I understand that President Bush said yesterday that the Americans are going to destroy the Abu Ghraib prison and help to build a new one. Don’t you think that that prison is a symbol, not only for what some American soldiers did there you know in torturing the Iraqis, but also a symbol of what Saddam Hussein did and should be maybe maintained and turned into a museum or something, rather than destroy it, just erase from our memories what the Americans did. And my second question, if you don’t mind, we understand that the Americans are planning to have the biggest American Embassy in the world in Baghdad itself, also planning to have between 6 – 8 bases for the American military staying there later on. This doesn’t sound like a part of a plan to give the Iraqis full sovereignty because it is too early to do this kind of thing before the Iraqis can actually decide for themselves whether they want the Americans to be in that kind of presence there or not.

Prime Minister

But the Iraqis will decide for themselves, that will be an Iraqi decision. May I just lay anyone’s mind at rest on this. The purpose of the action in Iraq was to liberate that country from Saddam Hussein who we believe was a threat with his weapons programme and what he had done in his region, and the idea is having liberated that country, to help Iraqis to a position where Iraq is run by Iraqis for Iraqis with their full sovereign powers. Whatever then happens with the relationship with America will be a matter for that Iraqi sovereign government, and it couldn’t be any clearer than that. And as for Abu Ghraib prison, well again I think that is a matter for the new Iraqi government, I think that there is a feeling that it might be better if it was simply destroyed because of everything that it has come to symbolise, but that is an issue I think they can resolve.

Question

But the Americans have already announced that they are going to destroy it, so he has taken the decision, not the Iraqis.

Prime Minister

In the end, I think a lot of people were actually calling on us to destroy Abu Ghraib prison, but in the end the question of what happens, and these policy decisions are ultimately going to be for the Iraqi people after the transfer of sovereignty. I think people are just beginning to understand that, and actually one of the important things about that is that it then does actually give the Iraqi people themselves responsibility for the situation. And the interesting thing is that you have got none of the people talking who are in any positions of authority in Iraq saying we want the coalition to leave tomorrow. People know that the troops have to remain, out of necessity, for a time in order to allow the Iraqis to develop their own security and army capability. But that is the purpose of it, it is going to be there in support of them, not there in defiance of Iraqi will.

Question

In the light of Mr Zapatero’s visit here next week, I would like to know, your relationship now is based on a common view on foreign policy, especially transatlantic relations. Mr Zapatero has said on the record, and I beg your pardon, that you and Mr Bush did a war based on lies. I would like to know what is going to be the basis of your relationship now with the new Prime Minister in Spain?

Prime Minister

Well we had a disagreement over Iraq, as may have been obvious to you, it has not escaped anyone’s notice, and Spain and Britain have worked very closely together over the past few years and I have no doubt at all that will continue, and it is important we are good partners in Europe, and we just have to recognise we have disagreed over Iraq. But for example over Afghanistan, we are working closely together, in all the main issues to do with the future of the European Union, issues like economic reform, the new government has indicated they will work closely with us too. So I am sure the relationship will work out just fine.

Question

The question of abuses in Iraq, I want you to clarify on the point of providing immunity for the soldiers who actually committed those crimes, do you support this while at the same time you condemn the practice. It would sound a bit ironic, wouldn’t it?

Prime Minister

I think there has been again a lot of confusion over this. There is no question of giving people immunity in the sense that they are not subject to the prosecution that will be issued against any person that has been guilty of crimes in Iraq, but we will operate under the same procedures as British soldiers always operate abroad, which is immunity in respect of the particular country, but not immunity in terms of our own military processes and so on. So this is following no different pattern from the pattern that we would have in any other sphere of operation for the British troops. And what would be quite wrong and misleading is for people to think we were somehow saying British troops could do whatever they want and nothing would happen, they would be subject to the full rigour of the military processes of the law, as they should be.

Question

My question is regarding the British presence in Iraq, the diplomatic and the political presence in Iraq after 30 June. We heard there will be a British Embassy in Baghdad, a representative office in Basra and Kirkuk. Why Kirkuk, and was that considered by some Iraqis that it is an acceptance of the Kurdish claims that Kirkuk is the capital city of Kurdistan?

Prime Minister

No, it is simply an acceptance of the fact that often in a country we will have various consular offices as well as a main Embassy, so that will happen often, you will have one main Embassy in the capital city and then you will have different consular offices, but I wouldn’t take that in that way at all.

Question

Your government talks a lot about no return to boom and bust. Are you concerned that the Bank of England says it is not its job to stop the housing boom becoming a bust?

Prime Minister

It certainly is the Bank of England’s job to make sure that that inflation is controlled, as they have done very successfully. And in relation to a lot of the speculation in the past few days, you will have seen the correcting statement put out by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and I think that the new framework of economic management has actually worked very well for the country, it has given us historically low interest rates and inflation and high levels of employment.

You were reported to have told the Guardian newspaper a couple of weeks ago that if you felt you were a liability to your party you would stand down, not lead it into another election. How would you judge whether you are a liability and do you see the June 10 round of elections as a test of your leadership?

Prime Minister

I think we should do as well as we possibly can on June 10, and as for the rest of it, I think I would refer you to the answer I gave, or didn’t give, a few moments ago.

Question

No, I think that shows what we can achieve when the government responds to prompting by the Daily Express. So I will ask you about something else. On petrol prices, during the last fuel dispute economists came to think that 80p a litre was kind of a psychological barrier for consumers, beyond which they got very grumpy, and now they think it is 85p and we are heading in that direction at the moment. Does the government think of it in terms of those sort of benchmarks, and isn’t it quite disingenuous for you to say the main determinant of the oil price is simply the international price of the petrol price, the international price of crude oil, when the vast majority of the price at the pump is in fact tax revenue?

Prime Minister

Well I think we should decide this according to finance rather than psychology as it were. But no I don’t think we are being disingenuous in saying that, the fact is the reason why oil prices have gone up, the reason why the price of a litre of petrol has gone up is because of what has happened in the international situation, particularly with the extra demand from China and the United States of America. The oil price has gone up, the government has not raised the duty on it. And actually if you look back, since we got rid of the fuel duty escalator after the fuel protests last time round, I think in the 7 years we have been in office that the duty and fuel has gone up something like 10p, and in the 7 years before we came to office it was something like 17p.

Question

Richard Pearle this morning said it was a grave error to let the liberation of Iraq slide into occupation, do you agree with that?

Prime Minister

I don’t think we have done that. What we have tried to do is to provide as much as we could against any of the dangers that we foresaw, and a whole series of things that people predicted in Iraq haven’t happened – a humanitarian disaster, people wanting the break-up of the country, foreign powers in the region, attempting to stir up trouble – the whole series of things that haven’t happened. The problem in Iraq now, indeed as the Defence Minister was saying to me earlier, it is not complicated to describe but it is complicated to resolve. It is very simple to describe, it is security, because there are groups of people who recognise incidentally that if we get Iraq on its feet and prosperous and democratic and stable, that is a huge blow to their propaganda against America, against the west and so on, and they are trying to stop us and they are literally prepared, they have got a very simple strategy, which is to kill anybody who tries to help make the country better, and hope literally by intimidation and terrorism, they can stop the progress. That is what they are trying to do. Now we have got no option in those circumstances but to try to stop them, and there was always going to be a point in time when we had to, having engaged in running the country ourselves with an Iraqi Governing Council alongside us, we hand over sovereignty, but I don’t think we could have done that simply at the beginning, I just don’t think that would have worked and that is why we didn’t do it.

Question

The Americans have recently been attacking religious sites in southern Iraq, for example Imam Ali’s shrine was attacked, the … of peace grave near Najaf was attacked, and on Sunday the … de Salah, which is a very, very holy mosque in Kufor. By doing this the Americans and of course the British are also losing credibility in the south where many of them are against … troops. Surely by the Americans continuing to attack religious sites would create a very dangerous situation in the south.

Prime Minister

Let’s again be very clear about this. The Americans are not attacking religious sites, what is happening is that people in and around religious sites are attacking American and coalition troops and they are having to respond to that attack. Now that is what is actually happening. It is not that Americans are going out and saying how can we attack religious shrines, that is the propaganda that is aimed at us by our opponents, but what is happening is that these militia who want to stop democracy, or these outside terrorists who have actually got no interest in a free or sovereign Iraq, are actually trying to use the situation around the mosques in order to get the headline of saying America is out there attacking religious sites, that is actually what is happening. And I think people when they think about it know perfectly well that is what is happening. And one of the reasons why I think it is so important we make this transition to the Iraqi security forces handling these situations is so that it becomes absolutely clear this is not the coalition trying to attack a holy site of Islam, it is actually people who are trying to disrupt the progress of Iraq and in doing so trying to make the propaganda against the coalition forces. So I think that is one reason why the sooner we get to a situation where these people are being taken on and dealt with by Iraqis, the better. And that is why I think what has happened in Fallujah for all the difficulties, you will have seen the press conference there with the American Commander, the local Commander and the civic leadership in Fallujah, and that is a situation where order is being restored in partnership with the Iraqis.

Question

Prime Minister if I can turn to an international conflict of a slightly less bloody kind. The IOC Report last week on London’s bid for the Olympic Games suggested that whilst the city was a wonderful place to hold them, transport and public support were two key weaknesses. It doesn’t come as much surprise to Londoners that transport’s not up to scratch in this city. What are you going to do about it?

Prime Minister

Well the most important thing is to make the investment. It didn’t come as a surprise to us either. One of the reasons why I think we can be cautiously optimistic, if I can put it like that, about the Olympic bid is that we knew perfectly well what the main point of criticism would be. It’s on the transport infrastructure. We’re now putting substantial investment into the Underground, we are committed to Crossrail and the other major London projects, and we have got to set out in the months to come how we are going to fund those, and implement them effectively, and there’s no doubt at all transport is a major issue for Londoners, but the only cure for it is actually to carry on with the programme of investment, not to cut it back. So I’m reasonably hopeful we will do that.

Question

May I ask you about Afghanistan? I’ve spoken to one or two members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee who have just come back from that country. One of them described it as a basket case. You promised that it wouldn’t be forgotten. Do you think you’ve fulfilled your promises, and what can you do to make NATO fulfil theirs?

Prime Minister

I was looking for the right opportunity to say something about Afghanistan, and I would ask you to look at the statement that Donald Anderson has put out, and the statement that has come out from Mohammed Karzai in Afghanistan, and I really think it is absolutely wrong and unfortunate if people end up thinking Afghanistan has made no progress in the past two to three years. You’ve 5.5 million kids in school, including over 2 million girls in school who were banned from school. You’ve got a situation where the economy has grown 30% this year and is expected to grow another 20% next year. You’ve got a situation -I mean the most telling statistic is that 2.5 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan and you have got a situation where they are now going to approach elections, and this idea that the Taliban is back in charge running Afghanistan as far as I am aware is just complete nonsense.

Now having said all that, there is more to do. The Donor Conference didn’t get a lot of publicity, but the Donor Conference in Germany pledged over $8 billion, that’s hardly a forgotten country. Britain’s own contribution is actually £500 million which we have just upped by another £200 million. That’s not forgetting Afghanistan, and the actual prognosis for the country is good. Now sure there are still big problems. These countries are completely failed states, in a position of total and absolute degradation, so you don’t turn them around in 2 to 3 years, they don’t become First World countries en route to joining the European Union. It’s not like that for a country like Afghanistan. But I think that a measured report to be honest would say yes of course there are still these issues, and the reason why this will be a major subject for the NATO Conference in Istanbul coming up in June, because we want to extend the reconstruction teams and make sure that we get the writ of the government in Kabul running throughout the country. But it is neither forgotten, because I have continual meetings myself on Afghanistan, stocktakes that I actually personally take. It is neither forgotten nor is it a country that is going backwards. It’s a country going forwards albeit with all the difficulties that are absolutely clear.

Question

Prime Minister a lot of people say that the reason the Brits have been more sensitive perhaps in running their zone in occupied Iraq is that we have 300 years of colonial and imperial history behind us which the Americans don’t, but a lot of other people – historians on the left and right – well actually no, the last 100 years the United States has in seeking to impose its political and economic and cultural values on the wider world has stumbled into an imperial role, and that is what the cause of the trouble is because they won’t admit it, even to themselves. What do you think? Is it an empire, benign or otherwise, and if not, why not?

Prime Minister

As long as it takes. No I think that America is trying to ensure that the security issue that we confront in the early 21st Century which is international terrorism of a completely different type that will wage terror without limit and the issue of the proliferation of nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, I think America is trying to ensure that that security threat is dealt with, and that’s why we took the action in Afghanistan, that’s why we took the action in Iraq, and of course it is difficult when you do this. The very nature of the difficulties we have now in Iraq is in part, at any rate, an indication of the sheer degradation of the country under Saddam. You’re starting to try and build the institutions of politics, you’re trying to make sure that you have proper courts and police and defence. You know building on the appalling situation that we inherited and that was there. And my view is that this is nothing to do with great imperial ambitions, it is to do with the very clear identification by the Americans which I happen to agree with that this is the major security threat of our time, and we have to deal with it. And my view is that the whole of our thinking after September 11th should change and so far as we are concerned has changed, and that’s what I believe is taking place here. I think that some of the stuff that’s there is very, very glib and the other point I would make to you is this.

What is interesting to me is the appalling assassination of Mr Salim who was the Head of the Governing Council, responsibility claimed by Al-Qaeda. Now why are Al-Qaeda in there? They’re in there because they know perfectly well what will happen if Iraq gets on its feet. These people aren’t stupid. They know what’s going on. They know that if Iraq gets on its feet, and Iraqi oil is owned by Iraqis and the country is democratic, and it’s stable, and it’s moving forward, how can they turn round to the whole of the world and say look at these wretched, wicked Americans and what they’re trying to do, and its all a battle against Islam. They know that if we succeed in Iraq, they fail, and that’s why they are trying to make sure that we fail. And that’s the nature of the battle there is here.

Question

Prime Minister may I move you to another part of the Middle East. There is an Amnesty International Report about what happened in Raffah. It stated quite clearly that they are war crimes. I do think there is no way we can get the peace process moving or we can help that we one day will see two states in Palestine and Israel.

Prime Minister

I think there still remains a chance, and perhaps in the context of the G8 discussion of the Middle East we will be able to say some more about that. I don’t want to go back over repeating everything I’ve always said but I do think that it is important that the disengagement plan that was outlined by the Israeli Prime Minister still goes forward and I think that the meeting that the Quartet had on the 2nd of May has to be built upon, and that’s the only way through I can see at the moment. What you have to have is a proper security infrastructure on the Palestinian side provided with the help of the international community.

Question

Prime Minister

Well what I have come to learn about these situations is that you can debate forever the motives or intentions of people and the truth is you may never know the answer to that question, but what you have got to do is to make the best of the situation you are actually confronted with, and all I’m saying to people is if Israel does indeed disengage and remove the settlements on the Gaza, then that is a situation into which the international community should move, and then give the Palestinians the support in order to start the process of creating a viable Palestinian State without in any way, and let me emphasise this, prejudging the final status negotiations. Those negotiations should happen without any prejudging at all.

Question

Prime Minister, last week an American helicopter killed more than 40 civilians celebrating a wedding in Iraq and an Israeli helicopter – an American- made helicopter – killed at least 20 Palestinian civilians who were demonstrating peacefully. To what extent such acts would contribute to the cause of peace your government has always tried for in Palestine, and for establishing a democratic, stable country in Iraq?

Prime Minister

Well of course incidents like these create a tremendous and negative effect in the Arab world and the Middle East and in the Moslem world, but people are still trying to investigate what actually happened in relation to the issue of the people that were killed in Iraq, and I think it’s important we wait until we’re sure of the facts and I know no more than what has already been said publicly, but all I ask is that people look at the other side of what is also happening which is that there is a huge financial commitment by America to help the reconstruction of Iraq and I say this to you in all sincerity, and through you to people in the Arab and Moslem world, the strategic interests of Britain and America in respect of Iraq is the same interests as those of the Iraqi people, it is to have the country stable and democratic, with our own forces out of there. That’s what we want. We don’t want to stay a moment longer than it is necessary to do, because our whole desire is for Iraq to be run by the Iraqis in a democratic and stable way rather than in the utterly unstable and repressive way it was under Saddam and that’s the only interest we have, and that’s the same as the interests of the Iraqis themselves.

Question

Vaguely following from that note you talk of fanatics, terrorists, militants, and most people would agree that those people are in Iraq, but do you recognise that what we’ve had over the last few weeks, all the horror stories and all that, have actually made moderate people in Iraq question the actions of American troops, British troops, they might just see them as the Coalition, and do you recognise that some on your own backbenchers are embarrassed that you seem to give some veneer of respectability to the actions of the Americans and apologise for them on their behalf.

Prime Minister

Of course when things like the pictures in Abu Ghraib prison come out, or there are innocent civilians that are killed, of course it has an impact on the standing of the Coalition. That’s why we do everything we can to avoid this. All I’m saying is that it’s important people also look at the other side of what is happening which is Coalition soldiers risking their lives to help Iraqi people make their country better. And in the end what we’ve got to do is whilst we condemn unreservedly something such as happened in Abu Ghraib prison. How could you possibly do anything else. We also make sure that we stay the course and help the Iraqi people to get their country into the shape they want to see it, which is the same as we want which is, as I say, a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq. I don’t have the slightest doubt that whenever these things happen they have a bad impact on our credibility and on our standing, but what is important for us to do is to take the long view and say, what are we really trying to achieve there. What was in Iraq before was a brutal, repressive, dictatorial regime that was a source of huge instability in the region, including two regional wars, besides the murder of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, and what we’re trying to do now is to create that stability, and all I say to you is when these people like – if it is Al-Qaeda that killed Mr Salim, and these people who are killing innocent contractors and civilians trying to help the country, let’s have a balanced perspective. We are trying to make that country better and these people are trying to stop us, and in the end I think that’s part at least of the picture that needs to come across to people.

Question

Now that James Lovelock has entered into the energy debate and said that the threat from global warming is much greater than the threat from nuclear energy, do you think this government, and you in particular, will re-visit your energy policy and see that perhaps your reliance on renewables is not adequate.

Prime Minister

Well I’ve just recorded a message earlier today for the Conference on Renewable Energy that is taking place in Germany in a few days time under the Chairmanship of Chancellor Schroeder and we are absolutely committed to cutting carbon dioxide emissions, to ratification of Kyoto and Europe has played quite a part in trying to get the agreement of the Russian Government to move this process forward and I believe that long term the threat to the stability of the planet comes from the environment, I believe that, and from climate change and that’s why I think we have made it a main priority for us, along with Africa, those are the two key priorities for us at the G8 Summit next year.

Question

Prime Minister no doubt what you are saying about Iraq and the transfer of power and talk about democracy is sincere but the point is who would be in charge of Iraq after 30 June? Would it be the same group of people who were appointed by the American Administration, some of them as you have heard about Dr Challabi till the end of June he will be paid by the CIA. And I’m sure he asked when the amount that they are going to stop paying him, that others should not be paid as well. So what kind of people will be leading Iraq in the future? Is it the real representative of the Iraqis or the same group of people who were governing Iraq last year?

Prime Minister

First of all I should say to you I think that there are many members of the Governing Council that have done a superb job for Iraq, and incidentally there are some 11 Ministries that have already been transferred to Iraqi control. If you talk to the Iraqi Education and Health Ministers they have been taking the policy decisions in relation to those two areas for a long period of time, and let’s pay tribute to the work that these people have done, and some of them may well be Ministers in the new situation. But the reason why at an early stage of this we called on the United Nations and said you take charge of this nominating process was precisely in order to say to people we want to make it clear that people that are going to be appointed as the Prime Minister, the President, the two Vice-Presidents, the Government of Iraq in the run up to a proper democratic transition, those people are going to be decided by an independent United Nations rather than the Coalition, or they are going to be nominated by them, so the whole idea of this process was in order to ensure that there was an objective element and dimension in that, and I think that is very important. And so obviously what Mr Brahimi is doing is trying to make sure that the people that he nominates are people that Iraqis will consider genuinely representative, but you will only ultimately get representative democracy when there’s a democratic vote.

Question

…. some of the Government who were appointed by Bremer still objecting to what Brahimi is trying to do.

Prime Minister

One thing’s for sure in a situation like this is that there will be a lot of toeing and froing won’t there. That’s bound to happen in a situation like this, but I think that Mr Brahimi is someone with immense experience, he performed this process extremely well and ably in Afghanistan, and the point is that what I’m saying to you is that this is not a process we are choosing, and the reason we got the United Nations involved is so as to make it clear that we’ve got international, in a sense, blessing for this. Just so that you realise, over the next few weeks what I hope we will have in respect of Iraq is a very clear political process, endorsed by the United Nations, and a very clear security process which will involve over time the increasing development of Iraqi defence and security services and when that happens, then the Coalition forces can progressively withdraw.

Question

Many Palestinians are calling for UN protection in the Gaza Strip. What’s your stance on that?

Prime Minister

I think that if we can make progress with the disengagement process then I think there is a role for the Quartet, not necessarily the United Nations, but for the international community to help in that situation, and one thing is for sure that we’ve got to put the Palestinian Authority in a position where it is clear they are doing everything they can to stop the terrorism and therefore there is no reason for us not moving forward with the political process.

Question

Just going back to the question from The Independent before, are you saying that despite the intense focus, governmental and media, on events in the Middle East that it’s a mistake to raise concerns that other rogue elements, whether they are warlords in Afghanistan or leaders such as Kim Jong Ill in North Korea are essentially being left to fiddle while Iraq burns, and on the back of that can we say that if Iraq does stop burning, that North Korea is the place where you and Mr Bush will next fix your gaze?

Prime Minister

No I think the position on North Korea is the position that we’ve always set out and I’m pleased that over the past few months there have been six party talks that have happened in North Korea. There’s no doubt at all that North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme is a serious worry, but it can be dealt with in the way that I’ve described. And as for Afghanistan, I just repeat what I’ve already said, but I would simply emphasise to you whatever has been in and out of the headlines, we have been working on Afghanistan. I’ve held several meetings on Afghanistan myself over the last few months in order to make sure that though the media focus, for perfectly understandable reasons, is on Iraq, we continue with the work in Afghanistan.

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 25, 2004

Prime Minister’s press conference

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

Question

Prime Minister

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by