BRIEFING BY JACK STRAW
UK FOREIGN SECRETARY

UK FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

October 12, 2002

QUESTION: Tony Blair has been to Moscow this week to try to persuade the Russian President, Mr Putin, to support action against Iraq. The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has been to the Middle East. On Monday he's off to Washington. As for the Bush Administration, they're still putting pressure on other members of the UN Security Council to support a tougher resolution against Iraq. All this diplomatic activity. The Foreign Secretary is on the line. Is a war any closer, or is it further away?

JACK STRAW: I think probably further away. Let's be clear about this. We face a regime in Iraq which is one of the most vicious and evil regimes that has ever been known to humankind. And its record I think is now better understood by the world. What we know about this regime is that diplomacy by itself simply does not work and that's been the history of the last twenty years where the most brutal attacks have been launched by the Iraqi regime. On Iran, first of all, on Saddam Hussein's own people and then the wholly gratuitous and totally unjustifiable invasion of Kuwait. And then after that it was only as a result of the resolve of the international community and the use of force that the inspectors were able to get in and to do their work until the international community's resolve I'm afraid fractured rather and Saddam Hussein was able to exploit that and expel the inspectors.

So as I've said a number of times, but it's worth repeating, what we face here is a paradox. The firmer and tougher we are up front about the fact that we will use force in Iraq within international law if the weapons inspectors are not allowed back to do their job and to do it properly, the more likely there is to be a peaceful resolution.

One last point: the Iraqis have now written a further letter, I may say not satisfactory, saying that, subject to certain terms, they want the inspectors back. Just four weeks ago they were saying they would not have the inspectors back in any circumstances, that they had no weapons of mass destruction. There is only one reason why they have moved this far, not far enough, but this far, and that is because of the potential threat of force plus the fact that what ever other points of debate take place the international community is now clear that this long standing sore of Saddam Hussein's defiance of the international community has to be dealt with

QUESTION: That may be true, certainly nobody would argue with you about Saddam's record, but what you are not succeeding in doing it seems, and certainly Mr Blair wasn't successful in this in Moscow, is persuading the international community the other permanent members of the Security Council, that the way to deal with Saddam is to attack him.

JACK STRAW: Well that's very much a last resort and what we in doing at the moment is being involved in very intensive discussions with the other members of so called P5, that's the permanent members of the Security Council, Russia, China, the United States, France and ourselves. And with the other elected ten members about the appropriate resolution or resolutions to deal with the matter. Now as a matter of fact all of the people that I have spoken to, Foreign Ministers and others in any of the countries concerned are hard headed enough to recognise the nature of the Iraqi regime and the fact that as Kofi Annan said so wisely not so long ago, sensitive diplomacy has in circumstances to be backed by the threat of force and I would add to that, sometimes sadly the use of force as well.

QUESTION: Yes, but they are not persuaded of that are they. Mr Putin does not believe, and neither do the other permanent members, that the evidence is there to support an attack at this stage. Now if we send the weapons inspectors back in and they are then obstructed then perhaps the other permanent members will say the time has come for an attack. But first of all we have to send in the weapons inspectors. Is that now our position because it is certainly not the American position?

JACK STRAW: Well we have always wanted to send the weapons inspectors back. And may I say as far as the American position is concerned, I have in front of me the resolution of both Houses, the authorisation for the use of military force against Iraq resolution 2002 and what it says is the operational paragraphs, the Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President of the United States. One, to strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourage it in those efforts. Two, to obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that the effect of these is that Iraq complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: But the United States talk about regime change and that isn't what the United Nations is about.

JACK STRAW: Regime change has been a policy of the United States going back to the Clinton era. It was a policy formally adopted by the United States following the rejection of the weapons inspectors back in 1998. Now my own view about this, and I think President Clinton accepts this, is that had it been possible to get together an international coalition in respect of Iraq in 1998 when Saddam Hussein was using divisions inside the community to eject the weapons inspectors, the world would have been a much safer place in the intervening four years.

QUESTION: But Clinton now believes it is a mistake. What Bush is doing he believes is, is a profound mistake. It's detracting from the war against terrorism.

JACK STRAW: I've not heard him say that. But, but let me come back to your point. Do we want this dealt with through the United Nations? Yes of course because the defiance of Saddam Hussein is defiance of the United Nations, not of the United States or the United Kingdom. Do we want new resolutions from the United Nations Security Council? Yes that is what. Do we want the weapons inspectors to go back in and to do their job? Yes.

QUESTION: But the question is: do we want regime change? Because Washington does.

JACK STRAW: If you read these resolutions you'll see the whole focus of the proposal for action within the United Nations and the backing of that action by the potential use of force is about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

QUESTION: Which by the way most other countries don't think threaten us. Mr Putin clearly doesn't think they threaten us and nor does the CIA.

JACK STRAW: Well there are different views about the nature of the threat. Perhaps I can give the view of those with whom I spoke last week in the Middle East. None of the Foreign Ministers and heads of government to whom I spoke in very different countries of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Iran have anything but fear, loathing and also contempt for Saddam Hussein. But although none of us wants a war, all of those countries recognise that provided military action were authorised by international law and was a last resort it could be justifiable and that is our position.

Now you asked me about regime change. The position is as the Prime Minister and I have stated almost ad nauseum, we would prefer there to be a different regime, to put it at it's mildest, in Iraq. Is the focus of this international coalition which we hope to put together regime change? Is that the objective of the United Nations Security Council resolution? No. The whole focus is on the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. And as President Bush said in that important and very welcome speech which he made in Cincinnati in the week, if that were achieved, then you would have a profound change in the nature of the regime.

QUESTION: Right so let's be clear about this then. If we get a resolution that says the inspectors must go in and there will be certain consequences if they do not and Saddam Hussein complies nothing is going to happen. What I'm trying to get from you obviously is your understanding whether is going to be some sort of strike.

JACK STRAW: The starting point for all members of the P5, and that includes without any doubt the United States Administration, is every single one of them wants this resolved peacefully. None of them wants military action. If we do get to a new resolution which is satisfactory, requires the readmission of weapons inspectors without any conditions and that then happens, that's a very big if, but if that then happens, then there could be no military action because there could be no justification for military action in those circumstances.