The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Particularly noteworthy is Straw's statement that existing UN policy is 'defective'. He has also revised his estimate of the number of resolutions Iraq is in breach of to nine. mika http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page6199.asp 'Saddam Hussein's games' In a television interview on 2 October 2002, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw said that Saddam Hussein had 'shifted ... because of the credible threat of force which is being made by the international community'. He said that the UN weapons inspectors 'can only operate with the existing policy', a policy which is 'defective'. Mr Straw called for 'a new comprehensive and tough resolution of the Security Council'. He reiterated: 'any action that is taken ... will always be consistent with international law'. Read the interview the Foreign Secretary gave to Sky News below. __________________________________________________ Foreign Secretary: We have to be absolutely clear that the only reason why Saddam Hussein has shifted this far is because of the credible threat of force which is being made by the international community because of the flagrant breach by Saddam Hussein of United Nations Security Council resolutions over four years. We've great respect for Hans Blix, the United Nations Chief Weapons' Inspector, but Hans Blix is a senior Civil Servant of the United Nations and can only operate within the existing policy. That policy is defective. And what we have to have is upgraded weapons' inspection arrangements where it's the international community, not Saddam Hussein playing games, which determines how these inspections take place and what the consequences will be for Saddam Hussein if he continues to play games as he's done so over the past four years. Question: The Americans say that if Hans Blix goes ahead and goes in to Iraq, or wants to go in to Iraq without a new resolution, they will go in to thwart mode. Now would you back the Americans on that? Foreign Secretary: Look, Hans Blix is making a report to the Security Council tomorrow. I intend to await that report. What is happening alongside that in parallel is detailed negotiations with our partners on the permanent membership of the Security Council, Russia, China, France and the United States and with the elected ten members about a new Security Council resolution. And the very fact that Saddam Hussein has shifted this far, but only under the threat of force, makes the case even stronger for a new comprehensive and tough resolution of the Security Council. Question: But if we don't achieve that tough resolution and if it's a question of going with the UN or the US which do we go with? Foreign Secretary: We are aiming to achieve that new tough resolution, but I've made clear and so has the United States that any action that is taken, in which we participate or the United States participates, will always be consistent with international law. And never forget that Saddam Hussein's argument, is not with the United States, is not with United Kingdom, it's with the United Nations. And he's already in breach of nine separate Security Council resolutions. Question: Are you saying that the UN isn't effective enough by saying that Hans Blix is a Civil Servant? Foreign Secretary: No. He's a remarkable Civil Servant, a man for whom I've got great respect, but like all Civil Servants he has to operate within the law as it is and it's the current law of the United Nations, particularly the inspection resolutions of the Security Council, which are inadequate. Everybody now recognises they're inadequate and Saddam Hussein is actually making our case because just three weeks ago he was saying he would never permit unconditional inspections. For four years he's been playing games. Why has he changed? There's only one reason, because he recognises that he has to because there is a credible threat of force out there. What we now have to do is to put this pressure together in a new effective and tough resolution. Question: Why is it so important that the UN inspectors should be able to go in to Saddam Hussein's palaces? Foreign Secretary: Some of these palaces have an area almost the size of this town of Blackpool. It's well known that within these so called presidential palaces much of the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction has taken place. And it's just a further illustration of the way this man plays games. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk