EDITED TRANSCRIPT OF AN INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THE FOREIGN SECRETARY, JACK STRAW, ON BREAKFAST WITH FROST, SUNDAY 24 MARCH 2002

QUESTION:
What is the reason for the change of tactics in Afghanistan? Is it true that we have sent fighting troops there because of a report that a biological and chemical weapons factory had been found in the mountains?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Look I’m not going to talk about intelligence that we receive but the key factor determining our deployment of troops is perfectly obvious, it’s the damage that was done on 11 September and the potential that the Al-Qa’ida terrorists pose and continue to pose to the security of Afghanistan, to the region and to the world. That’s why we decided to back this international coalition in the first place and why it’s very important that we should continue to make a contribution.

QUESTION:
And what about the people who worry about is this another Vietnam or is it another Sierra Leone where a mission creep takes on a situation where we’re there for much longer than we ever planned to be?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
You can never pre-determine these things. If it turns out to be another Sierra Leone then I think it will be a cause for celebration because in Sierra Leone we have proved just how good can be a combination of British diplomacy, British military action and British humanitarian aid can be. What we have done there has worked to avert a really desperate civil war and to put that country back on the path to peace.

QUESTION:
It’s been a good operation obviously, Sierra Leone, but originally we had people assuring us that the troops would be out by June but it’s gone on for years. Will the same thing happen here?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
You cannot say for certain how long it’s going to last, but my judgement is that it is much more likely to be like Sierra Leone than Vietnam. The idea that we heard within two or three weeks that Afghanistan was going to be like Vietnam was completely fanciful. Vietnam was a war without proper international backing in which the Americans almost unilaterally got bogged down and ultimately had to retreat in what amounted to defeat. In Afghanistan we have military action backed by international law, by a huge coalition, for a very specific purpose - rooting out the Al-Qa’ida terrorists and introducing a democratic regime. We ought to be fantastically proud of the way in which we in the international community and our British troops have assisted that liberation and given phenomenal hope particularly for women and children where none was there before.

QUESTION:
Are you happy that Turkey will take over even if, as it says here, they want £300 million to do it?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Well there’s an issue about their own economy and they’ve been given a great deal of support by the international monetary fund. There’s a separate issue about compensation for the marginal cost, for running this operation in Afghanistan and they’ve been in discussions about that with the United States but they are anxious to do it if the conditions are right. They are in a trickier position than we were because of the history in Afghanistan and the fact that in the past the Turkish nation has been associated with Uzbeks and the Tajiks in the north of Afghanistan and not with the whole of Afghanistan. But if you’re asking me will I put money on them doing it, yes I would, am I absolutely certain they will.

QUESTION:
One last thing on Afghanistan, do you think Usama bin Laden is still alive and living in Afghanistan?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
None of us can be certain about that. What we can be certain about is that the organisation which he led with such devastating effect and which perpetrated the atrocities of the 11 September is now profoundly weakened but we have to make sure that its capacity to continue with such atrocities is totally eliminated.

QUESTION:
Coming on to Iraq if it’s decided to take military action against Iraq would we need a new UN Security Council Resolution or mandate or not?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
With the greatest of respect, David, you’re ahead of yourself. We’re not anywhere near there yet and my judgement won’t be there for quite some time. If you’re asking me would any action that were taken have to be subject to international law and our international obligations the answer to that is an emphatic yes. What needs to be remembered about the problems that the whole of the world has with Iraq is that we have this problem because of Iraq’s clear breach of its international obligation and international law. Why is everybody worried about Iraq? First of all it’s one of the very few countries in the world in the last 50 years to have invaded another country without any justification, as it did Kuwait in 1990. It then refused to accept the original United Nations obligations, there had to be a war backed by a very wide coalition and over the last 12 years nine separate United Nations Security council resolutions have been imposed on Iraq with 27 separate obligations. They have refused to implement 23 of those and the problem of Iraq would virtually disappear if they implemented those resolutions, particularly if they readmitted the weapons inspectors and allowed those weapons inspectors to do their job freely and properly as they failed to do up until the time they had to leave in 1998.

QUESTION:
Nobody admires the Iraqi regime or Saddam Hussein obviously, but does international law as it now stands give you a mandate to attack Iraq or only the no fly zone? You must have thought about, and the nation should be discussing it.

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Of course they should, yes. As I said, we have never been involved in any military action in our history since the establishment of the United Nations without the backing of international law and we’re not going to be because we are one of the leading members of the United Nations Security Council permanent members.

QUESTION:
So do we have a mandate to invade Iraq?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
We don’t have a mandate to invade Iraq now, no. What we need to do however is to ensure the full compliance by Iraq with these United Nation obligations. Now if Iraq refuses to comply with these clear obligations that have already been imposed upon them by the United Nations Security Council then the position in international law may very well change. But the crucial thing that all of us should concentrate on is Iraq’s failure to comply with its international obligations rather than speculating about military action. Nobody wants military action, and the way out of that lies very clearly in Saddam Hussein’s hands.

QUESTION:
Understood, we don’t have a mandate to invade Iraq at the moment, but do we have a mandate at the moment to bomb Iraq?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
As to decisions that will be taken or could be taken at a later date, that depends fully on the circumstances. You ask me is there a necessity for United Nations Security Council Resolution, there could be, there may not be. It depends entirely on the circumstances and the 1998 action that was taken was justified in international law and plainly justified on the basis of breach of existing United Nations Security Council resolutions. But on the fundamental issue, do you need to ensure that any action that is taken is justified in international law, there is only and can be only one answer and that is yes.

QUESTION:
But in a report today Whitehall warns attack on Saddam would be illegal?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
As a nation that has signed up to the United Nations, which is profoundly committed to international law, it is against our duty as well as against our self-interest for us to do anything which is contrary to international law. We haven’t done it; we’re not going to do it and the reason why our military action in Afghanistan was so plainly justified was precisely because we had the full backing of the international community.

QUESTION:
And have you ever seen incontrovertible evidence that there’s a link between Saddam and Al Qa’ida?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
I have not seen incontrovertible evidence of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qa’ida and that’s never been part of the argument that we have advanced from the British government about Iraq. Iraq poses a threat to the world because of its manufacture and development of weapons of mass destruction, which we know from some of the work of the inspectors. But we know it above all from the fact that Saddam Hussein has used these weapons himself against the Iranians and against his own. The question then for them is why did he make life absolutely impossible for the weapons inspectors in 1998 so they had to leave? And why does he continue to flout international law and to refuse to allow back these weapons inspectors in conditions in which they can freely do their job. That’s the issue.

QUESTION:
One of the other problems with the situation is that a majority of people in this country oppose the idea of military action against Iraq, including many of your back-benchers. Now I don’t think there’s war or battle on record where the British public was not behind the action. So you’re going to have to convert them aren’t you?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Well that question does not arise at the moment because there are no decisions whatever being made about military action against Iraq either by the United Kingdom or by the United States and the point I’ve often made about the United States is that if you look at the decisions that President Bush has taken in the last 18 months since he’s been President have been careful, cautious, proportionate and thought through over a long period and none of us have any reason to believe that any future decisions will not be the same. What I think however, as far as British public opinion is concerned is that the overwhelmingly people in Britain understand the threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein and wish the Iraqi government to take the action which they need to take under international law to do with threat that peacefully by complying with their international obligations. If they were to do that and Saddam Hussein was to re-admit the weapons inspectors, then that would be the end of the matter.

Notes for Editors

 

Back to newsroom

Back to top