INTERVIEW WITH JACK STRAW
UK FOREIGN SECRETARY

UK FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

October 18, 2002

Excerpts

INTERVIEWER: Today America will submit a new draft resolution on Iraq. Foreign Secretary, the reality is that the United States will do what it wants to do with or without the United Nations isn't it?

FOREIGN SECRETARY: No, I don't accept that and had that been the reality President Bush would not have made the very important and welcome speech that he made to the United Nations General Assembly on 12 September. Nor would the United States have been involved in the most intensive negotiations over the draft resolution which will be tabled privately to the the permanent five members of the Security Council later on today. And the involvement of US Secretary of State Powell following the lead given by President Bush has been overwhelming to try to secure a negotiated text which meets the concerns of the United States and - I've been very heavily in these negotiations too - one that meets the concerns of the United Kingdom, and at the same time recognises the concerns of the other members of the P5 - Russia, China and France - as well as those of the elected ten members of the Security Council.

INTERVIEWER: Yes, but what Mr Powell says is that the United States is now operating behind the authority given to the President by a joint resolution. Whether the United Nations acts or not.

FOREIGN SECRETARY: Well I've also got the full text of what Secretary Powell said and he said that any resolution that emerged from discussion amongst Security Council members will preserve the authority and right of the President of the United States to act in the self defence of the American people. Let me just make this clear. The right to act in self defence is a right specified by Article Fifty One of the United Nations Charter as well as in customary international law. The crucial point here is that in extremis every country has that right. But what is the preferred route for the United States, as it is for the United Kingdom, is to ensure that the authority of the United Nations is secured and upheld. And as I mentioned when you interviewed me last Saturday, if you read the text of the Congress resolution, yes it does authorise the President to act in self defence, but the overwhelming burden of that resolution is about the breach by Saddam Hussein not of obligations imposed on Iraq by the United States, but by the United Nations, and the fact that force may be necessary because of the breach of those resolutions... So we're all working here to secure the authority of the United Nations.

INTERVIEWER: Well now you're confusing two things here - that America is entitled to defend itself from perceived attacks, and yet we have the Director of the CIA himself, George Tennet, saying there is no such threat. So the whole thing really rather explodes in his face, and we're going along with that.

FOREIGN SECRETARY: No, I don't accept that for a second. The result of what some people have described as unilateralist, disproportionate demands made by the United States and us on Saddam Hussein has been to secure a major shift already in the position adopted by Iraq. You see what people were saying, certainly before President Bush made his speech on 12 September, was that the United States was unilateralist and many people were ready to swallow what Saddam Hussein had said, that there was no need to have weapons' inspectors back because they had nothing there. Until 10 September that was the position of the Iraqi Government. Once the Iraqi regime decided that the international community might be serious, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, they then said suddenly we'll let the inspectors back in. And what has also happened is that there’s a recognition by all members of the P5 - by China, by France, by President Putin yesterday in Moscow - all of them saying, yes, we now accept that Iraq is in flagrant breach of its obligations.

INTERVIEWER: A very specific question. Does Britain believe that there should be a separate resolution? Let us assume that the weapons' inspectors go into Iraq and they are not able properly to do their job. They then come back to the United Nations and Mr Blix says we're unable to do our job. Is it Britain's view that we should then be entitled to attack Iraq without a new resolution?

FOREIGN SECRETARY: Well, we have always made clear that we prefer a one resolution approach. What we want is a comprehensive resolution up front because that is the safe, surest way of ensuring a peaceful resolution for this dispute. We reserve the right to act within international law in respect of the use of force which may or may not be covered by a new resolution. But do we prefer the UN route? Yes.

. . .