Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation

'The world appeared... to split into two parts', Prime Minister Tony Blair's monthly press conference, April 28

Question: Prime Minister, could I return to where you started and Iraq. You have had some of the top Iraqi scientists in custody now for a couple of weeks, you have a lot of people on the ground there, and the most sophisticated intelligence operation the world has ever seen, you still have not found these fearsome weapons of mass destruction you were telling us about. How long is it going to be, and what will people draw from the failure to produce those weapons if you don't find them?

Prime Minister:...Well, I would counsel people not to be jumping around gleefully a little too early on this. It is correct that we have in place a very deliberate process where we are interviewing people, we are assessing sites. We started off, I think, with around about almost 150 sites and we were beginning to look at 7 of them. Actually the sites that we have got as the result of information now is closer to 1,000 in the whole of the country. We have looked at many of those, but nothing like a majority of them. It is true that we are interviewing scientists and others, but our first priority has got to be to stabilise the country, the second is the humanitarian situation, and the third - and we can take our time about this and so we should - is to make sure that we investigate the weapons of mass destruction, and we will do that. And as I say every time I am asked, I remain confident that they will be found...

Question: You were absolutely passionate about the need for war because of the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and how Saddam is the person who has used them in the past, does it surprise you at all that in a hole, faced with the destruction of his regime, he didn't use them, and now do we need to get the UN involved to verify if any weapons are found, rather than just the US and us doing it?

Prime Minister: Well, on the independent verification as I have been saying recently we need to discuss this with the UN and amongst the allies, but I have got no doubt at all that we need some process of independent verification. In respect of the first point, it is very important people realise two things. The first is there isn't any doubt that Iraq has had weapons of mass destruction. That is not in dispute, not from anybody. Indeed you will recall that it was only after 4 years of denial that we discovered they had the biological weapons programme that we thought they had. Iraq denied completely any nuclear weapons programme, and it was later discovered that they had one, and the reason we have had 12 years of UN Resolutions is precisely because we know that those weapons existed.

Now the second thing that is our case, the case that we have been making to people over the last few months, is that prior to the inspectors coming back in because there was a 6-month period if you like when it was clear the United States and ourselves were going to take action, and also clear that inspectors might be coming in, there was a 6-month campaign of concealment of these weapons. That is our intelligence, borne out by sufficient intelligence that there is no doubt in my mind that is what happened, and as I think I said to you either before the conflict started or possibly even in the course of it, one benefit of that was that it was going to be far more difficult for them to reconstitute that material to use in a situation of conflict, and in any event as you know, we were giving very strong warnings to the commanders in the field as to what would happen if they did. But I suggest to people - before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a little bit because there is a very deliberative process in place here, and there is no doubt that weapons of mass destruction existed, that they have been subject to this systematic campaign of concealment, and I hope that you understand that for very obvious reasons we are anxious not to start making the claims until we have absolutely bottomed out anything by way of information that comes to us.

Question: Doesn't this suggest that they are not as big a threat as you thought because they weren't used?

Prime Minister: No it doesn't because the question is if they were systematically concealed, they might not have been available for use in a conflict, it does not in the least follow from that that they couldn't have been reconstituted had we all left Iraq and the weapons inspectors not being able to carry out their job, it certainly does not in any shape or form mean that they would not have been a threat. I simply say to you, and obviously there is no way I've got of verifying all of this at the moment, but as more intelligence emerges, in particular from inside Iraq and from the former Iraqi Intelligence Unit, I think you will find increasing evidence of links between the previous Iraqi regime and terrorist organisations.

Question: As the ramifications of the Iraqi conflict play out in Europe, are you upset not to have been invited to tomorrow's discussions between the Germans, French and Belgians about a new defence arm for Europe. Are you worried that you, by talking to President Chirac about a European Defence dimension, let the genie out of the bottle and do you fear that this is an attempt to exclude a proper role for NATO, and for the US in the future defence of Europe?

Prime Minister: Well, it is a meeting between 4 member states. I think there are 15 in the European Union, so we are not in a situation as uniquely not having been invited to this. We will wait and see what comes out of it, but we won't accept, and neither will the rest of Europe, accept anything that either undermines NATO, or conflicts with the basic principles of European defence that we have set out. And on the contrary, European defence was already an issue. What we have done is ensure that Britain does not have an empty chair in that debate, that it is there making sure that European defence develops in a way that is compatible with NATO. And I simply repeat, European defence is necessary. There will be circumstances in which the United States of America does not want to become engaged. In those circumstances, Europe has got to have the capability to act and I read what I read about this Conference, but let's wait and see what actually transpires from it...

Question: Prime Minister, do not British families of those who died in this war, the citizens who elected you to take this decision, have the right at this critical moment when the cause of the war still has not yet been recovered, despite the patience you urge on us, do we not have the right to know what method will be used to verify that any such weapons have been found, if they are found? In this interregnum during which they have not been found, there is surely the very real danger that such is the desperation of yourself and Mr Bush to ensure that such weapons are found, that something will be codded up. Just to ensure against that, and surely to give the most independent possible basis for verifying that these weapons of mass destruction are what they pose as, what is wrong with Mr Blix? What did he do wrong, what are the drawbacks to simply bringing back a group of people in which you personally vested great faith at the beginning of this process?

Prime Minister:

Well first of all, the reason I am saying to you that there has to be independent verification is because I accept people will want that, and the reason I am simply being reserved about the exact method of independent verification is that that is something that is still under discussion.

Question: Why?

Prime Minister: Because it is important that we get it right. It is important that any system of verification is going to be one that actually works, and that is something we need to come to an agreement with between ourselves, our allies and the United Nations first, and when we come to that agreement we will tell you about it. But there is no doubt at all there has to be independent verification. Secondly, choose your language very carefully as well, because it is not correct that we do not have things that we now need actively to investigate at this stage. We do. And all I am saying to you is we are not making any announcements about finds of weapons of mass destruction until we are sure. But do not think there is not an awful lot of work going on of a very useful nature, but our priority has been, for very obvious reasons having fought a conflict, to get the security situation sorted out and then the humanitarian situation. And as for allegations that we are going to, I think you said, was it, cod something up, I hope you said that jokingly. There is nobody in any part of my administration, or who works for any of our services, that would ever agree to such a thing.

Question: But you haven't explained why Blix can't simply go back, he has a terrifically well equipped team, they have all the wherewithal, they know where everything is, they could go tomorrow.

Prime Minister: Jon, things have changed, there has been a conflict inbetween the UN inspectors being there and coming back now. So we need to discuss what is the right and proper way to get the independent verification.

Question: Was ridding Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction the primary reason for going to war?

Prime Minister: Yes, that was the justification that Iraq had to be disarmed and I always made it clear that the concept of regime change in a sense followed on from that. But it was a question of making sure that the resolutions of the UN were properly upheld.

Question: Can I come back to the question of Europe, more specifically France. You said in an interview published in a national newspaper today that you think the French attempt to create a rival pole to American power is destabilising, these are words that echo those of Foreign Secretary Straw over the weekend. Can you clarify this position, because you said yourself earlier today that it is important for Europe to become more important in the world, to make its voice heard more, is that not inherently competitive to America anyway, once you begin to build up Europe and to make it more powerful and effective, that is automatically a sense of rivalry to America, so how do you reconcile or avoid a rift here?

Prime Minister: Well that is a good question. The central issue is this. As Europe develops, as it becomes more powerful, does it see itself as a partner or a rival? Now I think it is perfectly possible for Europe to become more powerful, but as an ally and partner of the United States of America. And if it were to develop in that way, you would never have seen the situation such as occurred over the past few months with Europe and America, at least part of Europe, and America divided in that way. And let me make it clear to you, France remains an important ally for the United Kingdom. There are many things that France and Britain have in common, and even if we didn't want to have them in common we would have them in common economically in terms of our geography, in terms of the fact that in Europe we are probably the two leading defence nations, in terms of our interest in Africa, in terms of our membership of all the major security and political institutions of the world. France and Britain should work together, but I think it is important that we come to a proper understanding within Europe of what our relationship with America is, and that is not something exclusive, incidentally, to debate between Britain and France, it is something that Germany and other countries need to engage in too, but I think it is a fundamental decision as to whether the world breaks into different centres of power that I think very quickly will become rival centres of power, or whether we see our task as trying to construct a genuine strategic partnership with America for the future which others can then join. And my fear is that if we don't deal with the world on the basis of a partnership between Europe and America, then we will in a sense put back into the world the divisions that we wanted to get rid of when the Cold War finished, and I think that would be just a disaster for the world. And the truth is, whatever the problems there have been in the past few months, and as I say there is no point in trying to hide them, and I don't try to hide them, the fact is in terms of our economy, in terms of the way our people live, in terms of our values, the values of Europe and America are the same.

Question: ... another Cold War?

Prime Minister: I think that if you ended up with two rival centres of power you would find a very, very difficult situation. Look, you have had a very difficult situation in the last few months, that should give us some clue as to what will happen if this occurs. The world appeared, the industrialised modern developed world appeared to split into two parts, and I think that is dangerous, and that is why I think we need to go back into this in a considered way and have an honest discussion about it, not cover it up or pretend that we haven't had these big differences, or try and blot over them, but actually have the discussion, and that needn't be, and shouldn't be, acrimonious, or bitter, or personalised, or any of the rest of it, but it should be about what is an agenda that can form the partnership for the modern world. And what I say about that is that the items that go on that agenda are in a sense very, very clear, they are terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the Americans are right about those issues and we should be backing them in fighting them, but they are also issues to do in the Middle East with the Middle East peace process, to do with the problems of the world environment, to do with global poverty, to do with the World Trade Organisation and free trade, which is a massive issue, it doesn't hit the headlines but I tell you that one of the biggest issues coming up in the next 6 months is what we do about world trade. Now are Europe and America going to fight each other, or are they going to come to a common position and drive that through? I think these are really big questions.

Question: ... in what forum those kind of discussions could take place? Obviously a big global meeting is necessary to do that.

Prime Minister: They will take place in formal discussions in the G8, but I think it is more informally as well and we need just to debate that within Europe and across the Atlantic too.

Source: 10 Downing Street website, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3535.asp.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2003 The Acronym Institute.