|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: So a lot happening on the
battlefield but no one suggests this is all going to be over very soon,
there may be a long way to go yet, and that means the diplomats have a
job to do. President Bush has been in New York this weekend talking to
the United Nations, trying to build support for the War in Afghanistan.
Other world leaders are there too, our own Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw,
will be making a speech to the United Nations in a few hours' time. I
spoke to him late last night and I asked him about where the war goes from
here - might Iraq be the next target? But I began with the story that
had just broken last night, the so-called State of Emergency that's going
to be introduced tomorrow. I asked Mr Straw, if it was really needed,
unless of course there is new evidence of plans to attack us here in Britain.
JACK STRAW: There's no state of emergency
being announced tomorrow, what is happening was actually announced by David
Blunkett a couple of weeks ago when he made his statement about new measures
to counter the new terrorist threat and what he announced and will go before
Parliament I think next week, is plans to derogate from the Human Rights
Act and the European Convention of Human Rights, under the convention itself,
so as to permit in very limited circumstances the detention, yes without
trial, of certain terrorist suspects who cannot be deported because of
another part of the Human Rights Act, namely Article 3 which quite properly
requires us to have full respect for human life. So there were circumstances
when I was Home Secretary, as there are now as David Blunkett is Home Secretary,
when you've got someone who needs to be deported but the country to which
they should be deported, for example Afghanistan under the control of the
Taliban, is such that if they were deported they would be killed or tortured.
But we, ourselves, have to protect our own society in respect of those
people and that's why these provisions with limited scope and very considerable
safe guards are going to be introduced.
HUMPHRYS: You say limited scope,
but it's still a potential infringement of our civil liberties isn't it?
STRAW: No it's not because the
European Convention on Human Rights itself represents a balance between
one civil liberty and another, including for example the right to life
enshrined in Article 1. And what we are saying is that the right to life
is above all the most fundamental of principles, you can't have terrorists
who on the one hand, for good reasons cannot be deported to their home
country because their own lives then would at risk but on the other hand
who are putting other people's lives at risk in this country and the convention
itself, drawn up in 1951 by some very hard headed jurists and statesmen
provides exactly for countries like the United Kingdom now facing the kind
of terrorist threat we do, to take this action taken within the convention
and within the Human Rights Act not outside it.
HUMPHRYS: But let's be clear why
it's happening now. Not is it because there is a new threat that you have
learned about against us?
STRAW: Well if you are asking me
is there an intelligence which I am going to disclose against in respect
of the United Kingdom now, the answer to that is I'm not going to disclose
any. And, however, has the terrorist threat heightened for the United
Kingdom for virtually every other country in the civilised world since
September 11th, the answer to that is of course yes. And you only have
to look at the interview by Osama Bin Laden this morning to show that that
is the case. Here is this man trying to go through all kinds of alleged
theological hoops to justify attacks on anybody who is not in his favour
and he declares that there's only one Islamic country, namely Afghanistan,
he also says that he has access to biological and chemical weapons which
we believe he does and also to nuclear weapons, we're far from certain
that he does there but he makes it very clear that he would wish to use
all the weapons at his disposal if he got the chance. That's the terrorist
threat, that is what we have to deal with.
HUMPHRYS: Let's talk about what's
happening, what's been happening in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance
clearly a significant victory taking Mazar-e-Sharif but the last time they
held that city they behaved absolutely appallingly with terrible brutality,
there were massacres and all the rest of it. You can't guarantee that that
isn't going to happen again this time can you?
STRAW: Well we are conscious of
what happened last time and huge effort is being undertaken, particularly
by the United States but also by the United Kingdom who are in direct touch
through Paul Burn, the Prime Minister's Special Representative, with all
the key people in the Northern Alliance to ensure that this indeed does
not happen again. The circumstances are really very different from what
happened before. This time the whole of the world is watching the Northern
Alliance, they know that, they also know that they've only achieved this
military success as a result of military assistance by the military coalition,
led by the United States in which the United Kingdom is participating and
the countries surrounding them, which have traditionally supported the
Northern Alliance, particularly Iran and Russia and some of the south central
Asian states, they are also and this wasn't the case years ago, profoundly
committed to the United Nations' agenda for Afghanistan which is there
for there to be a peaceful transition once the military action is over
to a broad based representative first of all transitional government and
then to a permanent government.
HUMPHRYS: Given the assistance
that you describe, it's not inconceivable that the Northern Alliance, will
sooner or later be able to take Kabul, they would then effectively be in
control of the country. Now we've made it perfectly clear, haven't we,
that we don't want a Northern Alliance government, we want a broad based
government.
STRAW: Well, the Northern Alliance
is the alliance which has the military capacity on the ground to defeat
the Taliban. They need the military assistance of the international coalition
led by the United States and which the United Kingdom and others are actively
participating, but they are the people who are opposing the Taliban and
so they have to be used. But also, I have to say that their representatives,
we are in discussion with, are..they are part of the real world, they are
not total fanatics like the Taliban. They understand, it's the same point
that I would made in respect of Mazar-e-Sharif. They understand acutely
that if they want to deliver peace and security to themselves, to their
families, to their own ethnic groups, they have to participate actively
in a broad based government, that they cannot carry on with the rule which
is so dismembered, Afghanistan, which is the winner takes all. But there's
this other point, John, the only reason that the winner has been able to
take all in the past is because of the partisan support for the Taliban
or the Northern Alliance from countries in the region, from Pakistan for
the Taliban, from Iran and Russia, for the Northern Alliance. There is
now an international consensus between the countries surrounding Afghanistan
about the nature of the government in Afghanistan. That it has to be broad
based, that it has to be representative and so the circumstances are different,
and I am optimistic about the potential political future for Afghanistan
once there has been a military defeat of the Taliban.
HUMPHRYS: You talk about international
consensus but the Russians for instance don't want anything at all to do
with the Taliban, don't want any part of them in the government.
STRAW: That is not the case. Nobody
wishes to see the hardline extremists at the core of the Taliban in any
future broad-based government and it's impossible to see circumstances
in which that could happen. But when I spoke to Sergei Ivanov, who is the
Defence Minister of the Russian Federation only two weeks ago and we discussed
this and he said of course there is likely to be a place in any future
broad-based government for what he described as the rank and file members
of the Taliban. In other words the people who have had to go along with
the Taliban, they may have been conscripted into the Taliban army or even
into the administration because the only alternative was starvation or
a bullet in the back. And so we have to differentiate pretty clearly between
as I say between the extremists in the core of the Taliban on the one
hand and the Pashtun who happen to have the label of Taliban attached to
them at the moment but who would probably, given a free choice, be as pleased
to see the back of the Taliban as the rest of us.
HUMPHRYS: Ramadan is just about
upon us. Some people of course we know want a bombing pause. You've said
you had an open mind as to that. Is it more or less likely that there
will be a bombing pause now that Mazar-e-Sharif has fallen?
STRAW: It's probably less likely
because of the military momentum and the need to ensure that this military
success is followed up elsewhere and frankly it's in the interests of every
single peaceful person in Afghanistan who wants a better future to see
this military action not paused but brought to a satisfactory conclusion
and for all of us, as we all, who are concerned about the humanitarian
situation, the humanitarian solution for people particularly in the north
where it's been most acute, is not to have a bombing pause because that
would have allowed the Taliban to continue their hold for example on Mazar-e-Sharif,
but to liberate Mazar-e-Sharif as now looks as though it's happening, and
then to get convoys, train of trucks down from Uzbekistan into that area
so it's actually in everybody's interest to ensure that the military campaign
is pursued.
HUMPHRYS: And yet President Musharraf
of Pakistan for one, says to continue with bombing throughout this period
would have definite negative effects on the Islamic world.
STRAW: Well, I think it would and
it wouldn't is the answer. What President Musharraf has also said is that
he wants to see as quick an end to the military action as possible but
he knows that military action, as someone who is a General himself has
to have a satisfactory or should have a satisfactory military conclusion
before it can be ended. I mean we've been through all this John, you know
the fact that there is as I'm told no writ in the Koran which suggests
that military action can't be taken during Ramadan and of course it's notorious
that the Taliban themselves always continued military action during that
period.
HUMPHRYS: It's clearly a great
relief to many people that Mazar-e-Sharif has fallen, but let's remember
what the point of this war is and that is to get Bin Laden and his organisation.
That is the point of it - we haven't done it yet, and that is the point
of it.
STRAW: Well, the point of the war
was set out for example by me in the objectives which I put before the
House of Common, set out in many statements by the Prime Minister and over
here in the United States by President Bush and Secretary Colin Powell.
It has never been the case that the only target of the war was Osama Bin
Laden. It was in addition to that to break up the al-Qaeda terrorist network
and to prevent those sheltering such terrorist organisations, in this case
the Taliban, from operating, and the reason that the focus has moved from
Osama Bin Laden through al-Qaeda into the Taliban is because as President
Bush and our Prime Minister has said, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have now
become indistinguishable. The key is to break up the terrorists' capacity
which exits in Afghanistan. Yes, obviously we would wish to see Osama Bin
Laden brought to account, it remains to be seen how quickly that would
happen. My guess is however, that in the end he will be handed over or
found.
HUMPHRYS: But of course you have
no idea when?
TRAW: Well, I can't speculate and
that's the nature of military action John. I'm not a clairvoyant.
HUMPHRYS: There's a great deal
of talk still in Washington, some say increasing talk, about widening the
war perhaps, the next target might be Iraq. Now you have said that that
must not happen unless there is clear evidence of Iraq's complicity in
terrorism. There is evidence, some say of precisely that, the Czechs themselves
have talked about confirming a meeting as having taken place between one
of the hijackers and Iraqi intelligence, so there does seem to be some
evidence growing.
STRAW: Well, what I've said and
this has been reflected in statements by our Prime Minister and Secretary
Colin Powell in the United States is that the only military action on the
agenda at the moment is that in Afghanistan. That so far as any other
country is concerned including Iraq you only take military action where
there is the clearest possible evidence arguing for it, and military action
is the only possible option available to achieving a necessary end. We're
not in that circumstance at the moment. However what I have been doing
earlier today is continuing negotiations with the Russians about a successor
resolution to the existing less than satisfactory resolutions in respect
of sanctions against Iraq and what we are seeking to do is to ensure there's
a more focussed regime which focuses on weapons of mass destruction and
material for that and for conventional weapons for use in Iraq whilst making
it simpler and easier to get humanitarian exports and things which have
entirely a benign purpose through to Iraq.
HUMPHRYS: President Bush has said
in the United Nations which is where you are at the moment of course, that
any regime that sponsors terrorism is going to have to pay the price -
the price for that sponsorship. Now, you talk about sanctions, that isn't
going to bring Saddam Hussein down, that isn't paying the price is it?
STRAW: Well, John, I didn't read
that into this, but none of us like the Saddam Hussein regime and it's
been deeply corrosive over the whole of the region. What we want to see
is action taken to ensure that the Saddam Hussein regime more effectively
or at all meets its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions,
but what President Bush is right to say, and it goes back to the issues
we were discussing right at the head of this programme that we have to
take action against those countries which are harbouring terrorists because
unless we do the civilised world is threatened. That's a point which I
shall be making tomorrow, Sunday, in my speech to the General Assembly
saying that the United Nations was founded fifty-five years ago in the
words of the Charter to ensure that the scourge of war does not engulf
successive generations. To that we have to add a second limb to ensure
that the scourge of terrorism does not engulf future generations, given
the obvious and present danger from terrorism and future danger that is
out there.
HUMPHRYS: And to remove or to mitigate
that future danger, we've got, clearly, we've got to sort out the problems
that exist in this world today, and one of those is Palestine and Israel.
Now we seem to be much more concerned with getting a resolution of that
problem than for instance do the Americans. President Bush seems much
less concerned than we do. He won't even meet Mr Arafat. So that seems
to be sending the wrong signal and people are concerned about that.
STRAW: Well sorry with great respect
I don't accept for a moment that there is no sign that President Bush does
not agree that the Middle East should be sorted out. He does agree, I know
for certain that he agrees and so does Secretary Colin Powell agree profoundly
about the dangers from the current Israel Palestinian conflict and the
importance of sorting it out.
I just make this point
about this now celebrated issue of a meeting between the President of the
United States and President Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. Because
of the position which the President of the United States holds, any meeting
between him and any other leader, but in this case particularly leader
of the Palestinian Authority, is going to take on far greater importance
and symbolism than a meeting between President Arafat and any other leader
of....in the western world, including our own Prime Minister, because the
expectations will be extremely high and therefore I'm sure that what President
Bush is thinking about is well, not just do I see President Arafat, but
what is going to be the outcome and the consequences of my doing so, because
one thing is for certain that to hold such a meeting without there being
a clear understanding of the likely outcome will actually not be to advance
the peace process but to set it back. But it's worth remembering that when
we talk about the Tenet and Mitchell plans, both of those are plans sponsored
by the United States and also, and developed by United States officials,
George Mitchell and Tenet the Head of the CIA, so it's not true at all
that the United States is disinterested in the Middle East. What we're
all searching for, what the Prime Minister is searching for is a means
by which this extremely difficult conflict which has cost, since the Intifada
started last September, so many hundreds of lives on both sides, is frightening
civilians and others in Israel and disabling them from going about their
lives, is causing the circumstances of the Palestinians in the occupied
territories to get worse and worse. That this conflict can be put into
a process where we get peace and not warfare from it.
HUMPHRYS: But surely you would
like to see President Bush putting more pressure on Israel to implement
United Nations Resolutions?
STRAW: What we want to see is a
willingness by both sides in the conflict, on the Palestinian side and
on the Israeli side, to start down the road that was set by the Tenet plan
and then get into the Mitchell plan and then towards the objectives which
were actually set out very crisply and accurately today by President Bush
of a situation of circumstances where the state of Israel is allowed to
celebrate its existence by the people of Israel and permitted to do so,
positively, not negatively, by the Arab States surrounding this, them,
and at the same time, there is a viable Palestinian state. Now the words
have advanced in recent months I'm pleased to say, and everybody is now
fully acknowledging the overwhelming case for there to be a Palestinian
state. What hasn't advanced sufficiently, is progress, and it has to be
progress on both sides towards that end, but I know, and this has often
been the subject of discussion with our Prime Minister and the President,
that the United States is devoting a huge amount of effort to working out
how to get the parties back together again, but it's because of the tensions
and the suspicions, which have grown over the last year, particularly since
the Intifada began, that, and for example assassinations of people like
Minister Zeevi which set back the process just at the moment when there
had been ten days quiet between the seventh of October and the seventeenth
of October, that I know that, that it is acutely difficult and I think
that, I say President Bush has to think about those difficulties before
he sets up such a high profile meeting as has been proposed between himself
and President Arafat of the Palestinian Authority.
HUMPHRYS: Foreign Secretary, many
thanks.
STRAW: Thank you very much.
|