Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-45)
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR EDWARD
CHAPLIN, MR
WILLIAM EHRMAN
AND DR
DAVID KELLY
WEDNESDAY 25 SEPTEMBER 2002
40. Why he is still there.
(Mr Straw) I was going to say why he goes in for pre-emptory
execution of political and personal rivals, sometimes doing it
himself. The evidence up to now, and it was also the evidence
in the early 1990s, is when he knows what the alternative is and
clearly he has to stop playing games, he stops playing games.
The early evidence from this process with his statement saying,
and I do not believe but I quote, that he was ready to have the
inspectors back unconditionally indicates that he has started
to get worried. I think we may need to worry him quite a lot more.
We want it resolved peacefully. I have made clear how I think
we will get there, by clear resolution of the international community
and by then presenting Saddam with a choice, a very clear choice,
one he has to make.
Chairman
41. Foreign Secretary, in 1981 you will recall
Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq. In the light of the development
of the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence would we still be
joining in the chorus of disapproval of Israel?
(Mr Straw) I am afraid I am not sufficiently familiar
with the history of that. If you want me to offer you a definitive
view I will write to you[2].
Mr Maples
42. I just wanted to explore with you in the
three minutes we have got a little bit further the context in
which this Iraq action has taken place because I am sure you will
agree it is not the only security issue the West faces in the
Gulf or the Middle East for that matter, particularly in the context
of al-Qaeda and terrorism which seems to be at least financed
and has grown largely out of Saudi Arabia and you yourself have
talked about what you are doing with Iran on the other side of
the Gulf. What I am interested in is very briefly—we have
not got long to explore this—what Britain is doing in other
countries in the Gulf to make sure that the action we might or
might not take in Iraq—
(Mr Straw) Other countries in?
43. In the Gulf.
(Mr Straw) We are working actively with the other
countries in that region. I may ask Mr Chaplin to come in on this.
There is a profound difference between the other countries in
the Middle East and Iraq which is that it is possible to have
proper diplomatic relations. I do not just mean by having ambassadors
there but by having intensive diplomatic dialogue. Mr Chaplin?
(Mr Chaplin) I think all the countries in the Gulf
do regard Saddam Hussein, given the history of 1991, as a threat.
Of course they may differ in how they think we should deal with
it. Whenever you talk to them about it they will also remind us
that there is another dispute going on in the Middle East which
they think should receive equal attention and I think the Prime
Minister and the Foreign Secretary dealt with those points yesterday
in the debate. Yes, there is an ongoing dialogue and always has
been, for example, about sanctions enforcement in all the countries
surrounding Iraq to try to make sure that the sanctions regime
is as effective as possible.
Chairman: We have one minute, Foreign Secretary.
Mr Mackinlay is going to ask one very crisp question.
Andrew Mackinlay
44. It seems to me listening to the replies
to myself, John Maples and Greg that Iraq is definitely in breach
of international law and in breach of these Chapter 7 Resolutions.
It seems to me the wider point is with your colleagues around
the world big players now both in respect of this and other potential
areas where there might be Chapter 7 Resolutions as well as agreeing
the wording about what must be done in a Chapter 7 Resolution
are you saying that we need to have the extra bit giving constabulary
powers, if you like, to whoever? It seems that is the void. The
danger is that over the past 50 years people have passed Chapter
7 Resolutions without going to the next bit saying how we are
going to enforce. That is the nub now. We are all satisfied that
he is in breach of international law but what we are dancing on
is how, whom and when is there a specific mandate to come along
as the sheriff, the marshal or the police officer?
(Mr Straw) It is quite a long question
and I will make the answer very short. It is an important point
to come back to. There have not been that many Chapter 7 Resolutions
because we would not have had consensus within the Security Council
for them. Of course there is an issue about enforcement which
comes because the enforcement of the will of the international
community depends by definition, given the current structure of
the international community, on the armed forces of individual
nation states working either individually or in a coalition. That
is the conundrum. As long as the international community is not
made up of one government but a series of sovereign states (for
euro-sceptics around, long may that continue) that is a circle
we are going to have to square. Producing a greater degree of
authority into the international system and ensuring, if you like,
there is more effective what you call constabulary powers and
that consequences flow more quickly is a very important challenge
for the international community.
Chairman
45. Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister talked
of keeping in touch and as a Committee we aim to keep in touch.
There may be one or two questions arising from this that we will
put by way of letter to you[3].
May I, on behalf of the Committee, thank you and your colleagues
for coming today.
(Mr Straw) Thank you very much. Anyway, it is your
call as to whether I come but it goes without saying that I am
always very happy to come back as often as you wish.
Chairman: We will call often. Thank you.
2 See Ev 78. Back
3
See Evidence, Ev 69-78. Back
| 
