INTERVIEW WITH MIKE O'BRIEN
UK FOREIGN OFFICE MINISTER

UK FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

November 17, 2002

INTERVIEWER: Iraq insists it has no weapons of mass destruction but declares that it will co-operate with UN weapons inspectors. Does this message in your view Mr O'Brien take us closer or further from war?

MR O'BRIEN: Well the objective of this Resolution is to try to avoid the use of military force. This is a genuine opportunity for Saddam Hussein to comply with International law; to comply with UN Resolutions. But as OP2, that's Operational Paragraph 2 of the Resolution, clearly says, this is a final opportunity for him and the UN has given him a genuine opportunity. If he complies now then we can avoid the use of military force.

INTERVIEWER: Critical to that Resolution was not just inspectors returning but that he ought to declare what weapons he'd got and the people working on them. We heard [earlier in the programme] from Tariq Aziz saying they have nothing whatsoever. If they persist with that do you believe that is already a material breach of the UN Resolution?

MR O'BRIEN: Let's have a look at the declaration that they make. The inspectors will go in and they will begin their inspections and, of course, we will have to look at the evidence. The Resolution is quite clear on how this will occur.

We are very clear that this Resolution must be fully complied with. No ifs, no buts, and no questions; it must be fully complied with and that includes making a declaration. We'll have to see what the Iraqis say in their declaration and the inspectors will be carrying out their inspections. If it is clear that there is a breach of the Resolution, Dr Blix and Dr Albaradae from the International Atomic Energy Authority will do a report and that will go to the UN Security Council. They will be able to consider it and, under Operational Paragraph 12, they will be able to decide how to go forward from there.

INTERVIEWER: Hans Blix the Chief UN Weapons Inspector has already said though that if the declaration isn't as you would expect it to be that it will be a moment, and I quote, for those who claim they have the evidence of Iraq having weapons to put it on the table.

MR O'BRIEN: Well let's see what the Iraqis say first. What Tariq Aziz says one minute is not necessarily what Saddam Hussein does the next minute.

INTERVIEWER: Could you produce another dossier?

MR O'BRIEN: We'll have to wait and see what the Iraqis say in the declaration on the 8th December or hopefully before that if they can do that. And then it is clear from the Resolution that we, and anyone else who wishes to, will be able to provide Hans Blix with any information that we have available. It's a matter for him how he uses that.

INTERVIEWER: So you stand ready to produce your own evidence?

MR O'BRIEN: It's not just us but any country is entitled under the Resolution to provide information to Hans Blix. It's then a matter for Hans Blix and Dr Albaradae to decide how they use that information.

INTERVIEWER: We heard Tariq Aziz, there [talk about possible] logistical problems, he even said there would be difficulty with translators. Didn't you get the feeling 'here we go again'? Says he'll comply and then says he can't find someone who understands Iraqi.

MR O'BRIEN: There is of course a danger of that. That might happen but we're offering a genuine opportunity here. You know this was a unanimous Resolution signed up to by the Security Council including a country like Syria, an Arab country representative of the Arab countries on the Security Council, because they wanted to give Saddam a genuine final opportunity. Now it's a matter for him whether he accepts this. We do not want war, we want Saddam disarmed. This is a genuine opportunity for him to take the decision to disarm and to avoid the use of military force. It may be he continues with the sort of behaviour we got used to during the 1990s where they lied, where they obstructed and where they breached international law. If so he must know that the Resolution says serious consequences will flow from that.

INTERVIEWER: Who makes the decision about whether there's a material breach as it's called, in other words breaking the UN Resolution? Is it the weapons inspectors themselves or the Security Council?

MR O'BRIEN: It's the Security Council. The Resolution 1441 is quite clear about the procedure. What happens is the weapons inspectors do a report to the Security Council under Operational Paragraph 11. And then under Operational Paragraph 12, the Security Council will consider whether that is a material breach and if so what consequences flow from that. But it's very clear that serious consequences will flow.

INTERVIEWER: Will there be a vote? Because those countries that thought this is a way of avoiding war will never sign up to a Resolution saying there's been a material breach because they know exactly what that would lead to: the bombing of Baghdad?

MR O'BRIEN: We are one of the countries that hope that this will be a way of avoiding war. Every country on the Security Council hopes that this will be a way of avoiding war; that Saddam will comply with international law and military force will not have to be used. But the Security Council I believe is also very clear. It signed up to a very tough Resolution unanimously saying that serious consequences would flow if there was a material breach of that Resolution. Saddam must get the message unequivocally that serious consequences will have to flow. We cannot allow international law to be continually breached, and the level of threat to be increased by Saddam. This is a man who authorised the use of chemical and biological weapons against his own people in Halabja in 1988 and killed five thousand men, women and children and nine thousand others were wounded. And then sent his soldiers in to execute a number of the wounded. We cannot allow this person to have nuclear weapons.

INTERVIEWER: If Iraq says they have no weapons and, as says Tariq Aziz on our programme, they say there are all sorts of problems like translation and the rest. Is that enough to say there is a breach, there may have to be military action?

MR O'BRIEN: We will have to have a look at what happens. We are here to give a very clear opportunity to Saddam but a final opportunity. We want to avoid war. This is a genuine chance for Saddam to avoid war and providing that he complies fully unequivocally with that Resolution then we can avoid war.

INTERVIEWER: People will have woken up to the news that there were people planning gas attacks on the London Underground. They woke up to the news in the past week that Usama bin Laden far from being dead, appears to be alive. Aren't you getting ready for a possible new war at a time when we've got no success in the first one?

MR O'BRIEN: I wish that threats came in ones: we could deal with it and then move onto the next one. But unfortunately we do have a very serious threat from Al Qa'ida and possibly Usama bin Laden (we don't know whether he's alive but it looks like he may well be). And we do have a serious threat from Saddam Hussein. We have them both at the same time and we have to deal with them. They are threats which are very real and they are threats which this country and the International community needs to deal with. The UN has signed up unanimously to a serious threat from Saddam Hussein. It must now be dealt with.