Member of Parliament for South Shields
Interviews
British Troops In Iraq
BBC Radio 4
28th August 2007
Interviewer:
Two points raised by General Keane there and they're typical of some of the points raised publicly and semi publicly by many American visitors recently. One, that things in Basra would get worse if British troops left, withdrew gradually. Secondly, that at the moment it's not working. How do you react to this tide of criticism that we've seen recently?
Foreign Secretary:
Well I think that the most important point is that British troops and other Coalition troops around Iraq first have very clear objectives, secondly have very clear criteria for meeting those objectives and thirdly a very clear command structure, and I hope I can just go through those three points with you.
The objective is to make sure that Iraq is run by the Iraqis, not just the eleven million Iraqis who turned out to vote in an election for a Government but also an Iraq security force that's able to provide security for local people. The criteria for that are very clear, that we want to make sure that as we change the deployment of our forces we have Iraqi forces in place with the deployment, the intelligence, the capabilities to take our place.
And third we have a very clear command structure. These decisions are not taken by sitting in a radio car in London, they're taken by force commanders on the ground, British force commanders in charge of their own forces working very closely with other Coalition forces together. So this is a joint decision.
And what's happened, just to fill out the point about the South which General Keane mentioned, of the four provinces in the South three have already been turned over to Iraqi control. In Muthanna, in Dhi...
Interviewer:
Yes and one of the governors was promptly assassinated.
Foreign Secretary:
...which is very, very serious but I think also important is the response to that because the Iraqi security forces have gone back in there, let me just finish the point now and then you, you can come back with the questions ...
Interviewer:
Okay.
Foreign Secretary:
...three of the four provinces in the South Eastern part of Iraq have been turned over to the Iraqi security forces. In Muthanna, in Dhi Qar, in Maysan. Those Iraqi security forces are performing with intelligence and with bravery. In the fourth province, Basra, which is obviously very, very important we've got processes under way for provincial Iraqi control there as well. And so the British role changes but it is a role that is defined by the situation on the ground in Iraq and that's the right way to do it I think.
Interviewer:
Well look at the situation, look at what happened when British soldiers withdrew from a Police joint command centre in Basra on Sunday. It was reported that the minute they were out the Iraqi Police were overwhelmed by members of the Mehdi Army.
Foreign Secretary:
Well I went, I've looked in to that because I thought you might raise this and obviously that would be concerning. Let me just set out the, the actual...
Interviewer:
Are you, are you saying it's not true?
Foreign Secretary:
...well let me set out the actual facts because your rendition of it there is not correct. What happened was that when the forces left there were some local criminal gangs who moved in but immediately the Iraqi security forces under the command of General Mohan who is in charge of all Iraqi security forces in the South Eastern part when back in and established order in that joint command centre. So it's not the case, it's not right to say that as British forces move that chaos ensues. Actually order has been established in that joint command centre...
Interviewer:
Well if that's true...
Foreign Secretary:
...and just in respect of General Keane's point about needing to deploy forces from the North in to the South to replace the Brits actually the opposite is happening at the moment. Of the fifteen thousand Iraqi forces under the control of General Mohan about half of them have been up in the North helping there.
So it's important to see this as a process in which we have very clear objectives, building up Iraqi capacity to run their own country and that is the...
Interviewer:
And that means...
Foreign Secretary:
...that is the defining element of our strategy thereand it'll be the defining element that drives decision making.
Interviewer:
The Prime Minister says there will be no timetable for withdrawal but surely what is happening is that as these developments which you say is happening, are happening, and can be sustained, British troops are gradually being withdrawn. That's what's happening isn't it?
Foreign Secretary:
Well obviously we had forty thousand troops there four or five years ago, we're now down to five and a half thousand, so obviously there are fewer British troops than there were before and their role is changing because obviously...
Interviewer:
And will that continue?
Foreign Secretary:
...well the procedure for that was set out in February by the previous Prime Minister, which is that as we move from the direct combat role we have a so called overwatch which has three key elements, the support and mentoring of Iraqi forces, the guarantee of supply routes and the capacity for reintervention. And so that is a changing role precisely because, to return to my original point, there are clear objectives for this... and the objective is Iraqi security forces that are able to provide security; as that happens our role changes.
Interviewer:
...but you see look, if you look at the, the analysis that's pretty clearly being made in Washington the President is setting up what he's likely to do when General Petraeus reports. And the argument seems to be from the administration that the Surge is showing some signs of success, they're not claiming it's an absolute success but they're saying it's showing some signs, and the argument is that if American troops were begin, were, were going to be drawn down it would produce more bloodshed and therefore the President is likely to argue the Surge should be intensified. Now if that happens, if that's the American position, does it leave Mr Brown with independence of action to decide what to do with British troops in the South of the country or not?
Foreign Secretary:
Well we will always take British decisions in the British national interest and...
Interviewer:
And that won't be affected by what the Americans do in Baghdad?
Foreign Secretary:
...well critically the Baghdad situation is different from the Basra...
Interviewer:
Well that's what I'm asking really.
Foreign Secretary:
...yeah well let me just go through that because Basra at ninety per cent Shia rather than split between Sunni and Shia, problems that have existed in Basra and I don't disguise them for one moment, it's a very difficult, very tough, a very challenging situation for our troops, but problems that are driven there not by divisions between Sunni and Shia, not by al Qa'ida, but by divisions within the Shia community, so you've got a very, very different situation. And I would say to you that the system that we've set up, not just the objectives that I've referred to but the clear criteria which are based on the differences in different parts of Iraq. And those people who are trying to say there's a competing British strategy versus an American strategy, the Americans themselves have handed over control to Iraqi security forces in four provincesthat were previously under their command.
Interviewer:
... me just try to clarify that. Are you saying that whatever the Americans decide vis à vis the Surge British Policy will be dictated by what is happening security wise on the ground in Basra and is not connected to what is happening in Baghdad because it's different?
Foreign Secretary:
Well obviously the decisions that are taken by the Coalition, the Coalition forces are local, they're regional and they're also national and the...
Interviewer:
So they are connected?
Foreign Secretary:
...the co-operation is at local, regional and national level but the Baghdad situation is a Baghdad situation, the Basra situation is a Basra situation.
Interviewer:
So whatever President Bush, I just want to be absolutely clear about this because people want to know, whatever President Bush decides to do in the area effectively in Baghdad and the area around it, will not affect what decisions are made vis à vis British troops in Basra?
Foreign Secretary:
Absolutely. Our decisions about Basra are about the situation on the ground in Basra, not the situation on the ground in Baghdad and I do return to this point. Clear objectives, clear criteria for when they're met and clear command structures based on the assessment of the situation on the ground by the real experts who are...
Interviewer:
How many troops...
Foreign Secretary:
...sitting on the ground.
Interviewer:
...do you expect there to be in Iraq in a year's time?
Foreign Secretary:
Well I'm not going to get in to the prediction ...
Interviewer:
You must have some idea.
Foreign Secretary:
...well I'm not going to get in to the prediction business 'cause I don't think it's sensible.
We've got five thousand, five hundred, five thousand seven hundred troops in Basra at the moment, the already announced plans will take that down to about five thousand. The Prime Minister has said that he will report back to Parliament as soon as it returns in October to set out further thinking there. There is the regular report to Parliament from the Defence Secretary about the rotation of British forces. I'm not going to pre-empt those points. But what I do say is that I know that the original decision about the invasion of Iraq was deeply divisive in the country and in all political...
Interviewer:
Did you agree with it at the time?
Foreign Secretary:
...I voted for the Government and I don't resile from that but let me just make this point. It was deeply divisive and it's been a very tough situation there, but despite the division that existed four or five years ago I think there is an opportunity to build genuine unity in this country around the following point, that British forces are serving under United Nations' authority unanimous successive United Nations Security Council resolutions and they have very clear objectives that I think can command unity, which is an Iraq run by Iraqis with security provided by Iraqis and the international community playing a supporting role in that country.
Interviewer:
Sir General, Sir Richard Dannatt, the Head of the Army, made a speech a couple of months ago in which he warned his senior staff to prepare for a generation of conflict. Was he right?
Foreign Secretary:
Well I think he was talking there about the challenge of terrorism and extremism.
Interviewer:
Iraq and Afghanistan, he said it was...
Foreign Secretary:
...hang on...
Interviewer:
...all consuming focus and he said 'We are on the edge' I quote him 'of a new and deadly great game in Afghanistan'. Was he right?
Foreign Secretary:
...well I (indistinct) I think that the point he was making, I haven't read the whole speech but I've read the quotes that were in The Times today, I think the point he was making is that there is a long term challenge of terrorism and extremism that's inspired by al Qa'ida.
First of all it's not just a military challenge and that's something that the military say as well, it's a military, diplomatic, ideological challenge where we have to take on the arguments that are being put, the false arguments that are being put against us about our motivations 'cause it's not a clash of civilisations that we seek, it's a clash of civilisations that's being sought by those who are our opponents...
Foreign Secretary:
...and that is a long, anyone who tells you that there is a short term quick fix in Afghanistan isn't telling you the truth and I would never say that. But equally anyone who tells you that there's simply a diplomatic solution or simply a military solution alone isn't telling you the truth either. It's got to be a balance of the two and that balance will change over time. Because I saw for myself an Afghan Army that was being developed when I visited there in July.
Interviewer:
Quickly on one other subject. A lot of Labour MPs are agreeing with the opposition that there should be a referendum on the EU Treaty, one that you promised on the Constitution, they don't see much difference between the Treaty and the Constitution. How can Mr Brown claim that he's consulting the people more and listening more if he says no to a referendum?
Foreign Secretary:
Well we've not got a European Constitution. Twenty seven...
Interviewer:
In all but name we have.
Foreign Secretary:
...no, I'm sorry Jim, twenty seven European Heads of Government all signed a document in June after the two years of...
Interviewer:
What does Valerie Giscard D'Estaing...
Foreign Secretary:
Hang on let me, let me, let me finish the point here...
Interviewer:
...who drew up the Constitution say about it?
Foreign Secretary:
...come on let me finish the point. Twenty seven European Heads of Government, current Heads of Government, not former Heads of Government like Giscard d'Estaing, current Heads of Government, twenty seven of them, all twenty seven, signed the document saying the constitutional concept has been, quote, unquote 'abandoned'.
Interviewer:
Because it was in their political interest to do so.
Foreign Secretary:
...abandoned Jim. It's been abandoned because the former treaties that were going to be brought together in to a single new constitution is not happening. Second and very important point, I gather you reported last week that forty Labour MPs were going to demand a referendum, today you're claiming it's a hundred and twenty on the...
Interviewer:
I'm not claiming any such thing 'cause we don't know it.
Foreign Secretary:
...on the basis of a newspaper article.
I think what the Prime Minister has made clear, and to be honest all politicians of all parties have talked about Parliament playing a bigger role in national life, I think that as Parliament gets to grips with the Reform Treaty that comes out come December, as they look line by line, they will see first that it's good for Britain, second that it's very different from the Constitution in absolute essence and third that the red lines, the key national interests in foreign policy and other areas of the United Kingdom have been protected.