In a television interview on 15 September, the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that the purpose of the United Nations
resolutions to be tabled on Iraq will be, 'the readmission of the weapons inspectors without condition and without
restriction and then to make clear what the consequences of the failure to abide by this resolution will be'.
He went on to say that if the resolutions are complied with then 'the case for military action recedes to the point
almost of invisibility'.
On the issue of the emergency House of Commons debate, Mr Straw emphasised the importance that 'the House should be able
to express its view and come to a conclusion'.
The Foreign Secretary said:
"...with commitment goes responsibility by everybody else to ensure that this system of international law here at the
United Nations is maintained enforced and upheld and that means making hard choices on behalf of the United Nations."
.... an edited transcript of the interview given by the Foreign Secretary....
'A CLEAR HARD CHOICE ABOUT IRAQ' (15/09/02)
EDITED TRANSCRIPT OF AN INTERVIEW GIVEN BY THE FOREIGN SECRETARY, JACK STRAW, ON BREAKFAST WITH FROST, SUNDAY 15
Do we want one resolution, just a deadline, or an authorisation of force as well in the same resolution or do we want
two resolutions, what are we calling for?
We haven't made a final decision about whether you have one resolution or two David, and that's something which can be
discussed and is going to be discussed during the next week with our representatives here at the United Nations and with
the other members of the so-called P5, that's the permanent five members of the Security Council and the other ten non
permanent members. What however we are clear about is what the purpose of these resolutions must be, and that is first
of all to recite all the resolutions which so far Saddam Hussein has ignored, to say that they're there as a result of
this has plainly been a material breach of the will of the United Nations' Security Council. Then to say what Saddam
Hussein must now do which has obviously to include above all the readmission of the weapons inspectors without condition
and without restriction and then to make clear what the consequences of the failure to abide by this resolution will be.
And are you confident that you'll get through without a veto from any of the five permanent members?
Well I, you can never predict these things until the actual event, however I am greatly encouraged by the very positive
framework for discussions which we've already had with the other members of the permanent five of the Security Council.
And what would happen if Saddam Hussein does do what we request fully, are we then saying to him you will not be
attacked, you are able to stay if you behave?
I've always made it clear at time without number that plainly if Saddam Hussein does comply with the spirit as well as
the letter of all these United Nations Security Council Resolutions, does readmit the weapons inspectors and allow them
to do their job without restrictions and without conditions then the case for military action recedes to the point
almost of invisibility and that is obvious, and is obvious too to the Saddam Hussein regime. What isn't obvious, or
hasn't been obvious to them up to now is whether the international community is serious about enforcing its will. As I
said in my speech to the General Assembly, the whole world community now faces a very clear, if hard, choice about Iraq
but we have to face these hard choices now otherwise the world will become a much more dangerous place. If we act in
that manner, get that across by a Security Council Resolution to Iraq, then I believe that military action may be
avoided. But we know from the record of this dreadful brutal regime that that is the only kind of language, which they
And in this country there's going to be an emergency House of Commons debate on Tuesday week but I gather no vote
because that would be premature. But Robin Cook has said it would be inconceivable to commit British forces without the
consent of the Commons, do you agree with that?
Well that's always been the case and it goes without saying and the Prime Minister and I made that clear and of course
it was unconstitutional to do anything else, that goes without saying. There's never been a commitment of troops by the
United Kingdom government in our democratic history which has not been approved and had the consent of the House of
Commons. So far as a debate on Tuesday week is concerned the Security Council may not have even had its first meeting by
that date still less have come to a resolution so as you've said the idea that you could make any decisions then or
consent to decisions about military action is premature. But nonetheless it's extremely important that the House should
be able to express its view and come to a conclusion.
And what about the dossier? We've heard lots of allegations about Saddam Hussein, some of which turned out not to be
true. How is this dossier going to be more specific than everything we've heard so far and will it be published before,
during or after the debate?
The dossier is due to be published early in the morning of Tuesday the 24th so that people have a chance to read it and
digest it before the debate commences at 11.30. What's in the dossier? Well wait and see but first of all there'll be a
digest of information, which is already publicly known about the nature of the regime. One of the astonishing things for
me who has read through the hundreds of pages of weapons inspectors reports, is how people up to now have not actually
applied themselves to already published sources about the evil nature of this regime. But alongside digesting a digest
of that information there will be as much of the product of intelligence as we can safely reveal. We have to be very,
very careful about that, but what this will do, just so that people, you know don't expect something they're not going
to get from the dossier, what the dossier will do is to give further and better particulars about the nature of this
And in terms of the overall scenario, I suppose you can't imagine any situation that will come up in the next few months
whereby we would not stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States even if we were the only one doing so?
Well yes to your first point. I don't believe for a moment we'll be the only ones doing so and what President Bush made
very clear on Thursday is his commitment to the United Nations system and one aspect of his commitment to the system, a
point that I was emphasising in my speech, was with commitment goes responsibility by everybody else to ensure that this
system of international law here at the United Nations is maintained enforced and upheld and that means making hard
choices on behalf of the United Nations.