Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 225)
TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2003
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR PETER
RICKETTS CMG AND
MR ROB
MACAIRE
220. Could you look also at the International
Crisis Group which made a fairly similar proposal and write to
the Committee on it?
(Mr Straw) Yes[9].
Chairman: I would like to have a couple of very
final questions. Mr Mackinlay?
Andrew Mackinlay
221. What I do not understand is what is the
frustration or impediment on the Quartet's road map? They met
in September, met again in December, it was published in January,
you on 21 February along with the Norwegian Foreign Minister called
for its adoption in an article, so I think the United Kingdom
government has quite a proud record—let's say that. But
who is it? Which is the party which is obstructing it? There has
been, on the face of it, a lot of delay. Where is it now?
(Mr Straw) It is awaiting the green light
for formal publication by the United States government.
222. So it is the United States government?
(Mr Straw) They are not obstructing it but they are
one of the parties to the Quartet and each party has to make its
own decisions. President Bush on 20 December said words to the
effect that he endorsed its contents but he did not believe, in
anticipation of the election in Israel and the formation of a
government, that it ought to be published and we are now pressing
for its publication.
223. I am not going to delay this but this is
something where we have to lean on George Bush, is it not? We
are tolerating an awful lot at the moment but this is where Bush
has to be told unequivocally by Her Majesty's Government and,
if anybody is listening, from this Parliament. An awful lot of
folk are getting pretty damned frustrated, are they not?
(Mr Straw) I will pass on your remarks!
224. So it is the United States who frustrate
this, that is your evidence here this afternoon, is it?
(Mr Straw) I picked my own words and what I said was
that we were awaiting a decision by the United States.
Chairman: Finally, Sir John?
Sir John Stanley
225. Foreign Secretary, like I suspect all colleagues
we get letters from well-meaning, good people who write to us
on the basis that it is absolutely essential to have the United
Nations' support for military action against Iraq, and there is
clearly a view in their minds that a United Nations resolution
has almost a degree of sanctity about it if it can be achieved.
Set against that, and we heard some quite interesting things on
the radio over the last few days, is the extraordinary amount
of venal skulduggery that goes into the process of sometimes securing
the necessary number of votes around the Security Council, and
various interviews kept taking place with small countries in impoverished
parts of the world who get bribed and threatened, etc, for their
vote. Can you give us any assurances on behalf of the British
government that the British government will not be engaging in
improper coercion or bribery itself—yes, improper coercion
or bribery - including the use of its aid programme in order to
be able to try to secure the necessary votes, because I hope,
Foreign Secretary, and I make this serious point, that you would
agree that it would be better that there was no second resolution
than one which was obtained by venal means?
(Mr Straw) I do agree. I do not agree
that aid programmes should be used in the way you describe—it
is not legal or lawful in this country. Moreover, I would be interested
to witness a conversation that took place with Clare Short when
the suggestion was raised with her! So far as I am concerned the
only force we bring to bear on this issue is the force of the
argument, which I happen to think is very strong.
Chairman: Can I thank you very much, indeed,
for helping us. We have covered a very wide canvas so many thanks
to you and your colleagues. We now move into private session.[10]
9 ibid Back
10
Not printed. Back
| 
