MTV
Forum – Is War the Answer?
Trevor Nelson
Tonight on MTV we’re proud to have a world exclusive
with the lead singer of a band called Ugly Rumours. For those
of you who you don’t know … Our guest tonight is not here to
talk about music, he’s here to talk about politics and the possibility
of a war on Iraq because he is the Prime Minister of Britain.
Please welcome Mr Tony Blair.
[Applause]
We have got a studio audience of 40 from 24 different
countries to pose a question, ‘Is war the answer?’, but before
we get started let’s have a quick recap on the story so far and
how the world has come to be on brink of war with Iraq.
Voice over
The United Nations claims Iraq has chemical and
biological weapons and wants them destroyed. Weapons inspectors
went into Iraq to make sure it happened but following years of
Iraqi non co-operation they left in 1998. In 1999 Iraq rejected
a new inspection scheme. In 2002 UN resolution 1441 gave Iraq
a final opportunity to comply with all previous resolutions or
suffer serious consequences. Hans Blix led a new weapons inspector
team and has said Iraq is not cooperating fully. At the end of
last year the United States started moving troops to the Gulf
in preparation for war. On the UN Security Council, the USA, United
Kingdom, Spain and Bulgaria are in favour of imminent action if
Iraq does not comply, whilst France Germany, Russia and China
are against. Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, Syria and
Pakistan remain undecided. Tony Blair became UK Prime Minister
in 1997 and he’s now in his second term in office. He is President
Bush’s strongest European ally and pledged early support for a
war if Saddam fails to disarm. Mr Blair is a committed Christian
and recently had a private audience with the Pope who has publicly
declared his opposition to war, and despite the fact that opinion
polls say a majority of UK voters have serious doubts about military
action, he is standing firm insisting Iraq must disarm or face
war.
Trevor Nelson
Just before we kick off with our first question
let’s have a look at a survey we’ve done of visitors to our MTV
websites across Europe. It’s not a scientific poll but 80,000
people have given us their views and here’s what they said. We
ask, "Do you think that the weapon inspectors need more time
to complete their task?" 76% said yes. And 24% said no, they
do not need more time. So, let’s go straight to our first question
which comes from Olof Sommell.
Olof Somell, Swedish, aged 23
Prime Minister Blair has repeatedly been said
time is running out for Saddam Hussein. It seems to me it’s in
fact yourself and President Bush that would set the date of an
actual attack. In that case, what is the rush?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
There is no rush, after all we’ve been waiting
12 years for Saddam to disarm himself of chemical and biological
and potentially nuclear weapons. We passed the UN resolution 4
months ago now which said there was a failed opportunity to disarm.
He is supposed to comply and co-operate with the UN inspectors
fully and unconditionally and he’s not doing that. So we think
it’s right that the UN now moves a further stage and makes it
clear that if he’s not prepared to disarm peacefully, then he’ll
have to be disarmed by force, otherwise we’ve said, as the UN,
you’ve got to disarm, then we’ve done nothing about it when that
doesn’t happen.
Olof Somell
Okay. In that case, why not simply let it be up
to Mr Blix and his inspectors to decide when the inspections are
done?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Well, if Saddam co-operates fully the inspectors
should be there as long as they want, then time is not an issue.
This is one of the confusions about this. If Saddam was actually
co-operating – look, you’ve got Iraq; it’s the size, twice the
landmass of the UK. There is no way the inspectors can go in there
without the Iraqi co-operation and find the stuff. They’re not
a detective agency. So, what the Iraqis have to do is co-operate
fully, otherwise you can’t shut the system down and can’t destroy
these biological and chemical weapons. If they aren’t prepared
to co-operate fully, frankly they shouldn’t take weeks, months
– they can take years. South Africa had its nuclear weapons programme
shut down after the end of Apartheid by 9 inspectors. So what,
it took 3 years; it doesn’t matter. If they don’t co-operate fully
they could be in there as they had been for years upon years and
manage to do it.
Trevor Nelson
Anybody else with a question on the subject of
why the rush to war?
Jonathan Lee, British, aged 23
If the argument to disarm Saddam is so strong,
then why recently did you have to rely on a 10-year old plagiarised
postgraduate essay as a main piece of evidence against the current
regime?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Well, I didn’t actually, the particular document,
despite all the great controversy there was. There were 3 parts
to the document. One part was intelligence. The second part was
a list of the intelligence agencies of Saddam and it was taken
from a reference book, but it was entirely accurate, nobody has
disputed its accuracy. The main part of the document dealt with
intelligence and that was nothing to do with a 10-year old thesis
or even an one-year old thesis. It was intelligence we put forward
and the one thing that’s important to realise is nobody disputes
– nobody disputes that Saddam is a threat if he’s not disarmed
of these weapons. So that isn’t the controversial thing. I think
what people really ask, which is what I understand is, is war
the only or the right way to do it? And my answer to that is,
it isn’t the first resort. The first resort is to do it peacefully,
voluntarily, and he knows exactly what he has to do and he’s had
12 years in which to do it.
Trevor Nelson
This gentleman here.
Niklas Ergardt, Swedish, aged 25
So there is no imminent danger then from him,
imminent as in now?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Well, we have 300,000 troops down there now sitting
on his doorstep. You’ve got the UN inspectors in. It’s unlikely
at this very moment in time as we speak that Saddam is going to
do anything; that’s true. But what happened before when he was
first given the opportunity to disarm completely was in April
1991 and he was given 15 days then to come forward with an honest
declaration of what he had. The inspectors went in. At that point,
because all the troops then left, Saddam began the game of not,
you know, co-operating properly. Finally, in 1998, they had to
leave. So, if we don’t act now – we can’t keep those people down
there forever. We can’t wait forever. If we don’t act now, then
we will go back to what has happened before and then of course
the whole thing begins again and he carries on developing these
weapons and these are dangerous weapons, particularly if they
fall into the hands of terrorists who we know want to use these
weapons if they can get them.
Niklas Ergardt
Still, obviously you are a person of a very great
intelligence as well as Bush and you do not acknowledge imminent
danger, so why attack?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
You’re saying not this very moment when we’re
sitting on them now, but I’ve absolutely no doubt at all that
if we don’t deal with this issue of weapons of mass destruction,
certainly he’s a threat. He’s a threat to his own region. Twice
before he’s invaded other countries in the region and he’s a threat
because these weapons – chemical and biological weapons – these
are dangerous things. When we call them weapons of mass destruction,
I sometimes think it deludes the language of any real meaning.
Niklas Ergardt
With all due respect, Mr Blair, I’m able to produce
an anthrax in my bathtub obviously because I studied up on it.
I have anthrax in my spinach in my summer cottage. I could do
anthrax as well. Why don’t you bomb Sweden?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Has Sweden ever killed 5,000 people in one village
with a chemical weapon?
Niklas Ergardt
No, but you’re saying obviously Saddam is not
an imminent threat.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
What I’m saying is he certainly is a threat. He’s
not a threat at this very moment with all those troops down there,
but you take all that away and you leave the inspectors back doing
what they were doing for the 7 or 8 years they were there in the
1990s-
Niklas Ergardt
Why not give military support to Hans Blix then?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
We’ve said we’ll give whatever support they need
but they can’t do their job unless they get Iraqi co-operation.
Look, they’ve got to go into Iraq and if the Iraqis aren’t telling
them and they normally find this out in weapons’ inspection programmes,
what they do is interview the scientists, experts, who worked
on the programme, that’s how you shut most of these programmes
down. Doctor Blix has been conducting interviews. The Iraqis have
refused 34 of the requests for interviews. The nine people who’ve
been interviewed have been interviewed in circumstances
Niklas Ergardt
It’s not very realistic to expect you’d get a
closed interview with a man in Iraq that is obviously having a
dictator, Saddam, as a threat against himself. He has families
left in Iraq, even if you bring them into Jordan. He’s got friends
there as well and they’d obviously be killed.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I agree with you, but what does that show about
the nature of the regime we’re dealing with? Is a regime you accept
is so wicked it would kill the family of someone who talks to
a UN inspector under a UN mandate – are you saying it’s right
to leave somebody-
Niklas Ergardt
No, I’m not, but we do have regimes and Africa
is doing that as well-
Trevor Nelson
I have to stop you because I think you’ve made
your point. Has anyone else got a point to make?
Mohammed Al-Hilli, Iraqi/British, aged 24
I’m an Iraqi who like all other Iraqis has suffered
enormously under Saddam’s regime. Two million people have been
killed. You mention war is the only option. Iraqi people have
suffered so much under the past 30 years and we don’t want bombing
of Iraqi people that would kill more Iraqis. Can we not look at
other options such as exile Saddam, supporting revolution in Iraq
and assassinating Saddam to limit the casualties? Because, at
the end of the day, there will be casualties of war.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I think that’s a very good point and incidentally
I’m not saying war is the only answer. There are 2 other answers.
One is voluntary disarmament by Saddam which, in any event, would
change greatly the nature of his regime because he uses these
weapons of mass destruction to police his own people. The second
point you make about exile and that, I think, is interesting because
I would be prepared to accept a situation where Saddam and his
immediate entourage went into exile and if that was the way of
avoiding conflict, then, personally, even though I regard Saddam
as a barbarous and evil man, I would be prepared to accept that
as a way of avoiding conflict, and I think there are a lot of
people, particularly in the Arab world, who’d agree with that
as the right way through.
Mohammed Al-Hilli, Iraqi/British, aged 24
You mention the first point and that is disarmament,
but disarmament is not the solution for Iraqi people. They’ve
suffered. Human rights should be the first point. If Saddam disarms,
how is that helping the suffering of Iraqi people killed by Saddam?
No one is helping them then. It has to be human rights. That has
to top of the agenda. If Saddam disarms his weapons of mass destruction,
that doesn’t solve anything for the Iraqis.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
That’s a very good point and let me answer it.
I personally think there are reasons to get rid of Saddam which
aren’t just to do with weapons of mass destruction, that thousands
of people die every year in Iraq needlessly as a result of him.
We’ve talked a lot about the UN and we have to work within the
UN mandate and it is disarmament. If we have to remove Saddam
to get disarmament, both those things happen. One of the reasons
I’ve said to people constantly – I have a very clear conscience
about doing this and we need to do this – is getting rid of Saddam
would be an act of humanity.
Trevor Nelson
We’re going to come back to the humanitarian subject
later on. That’s all we have time for in this part of the programme,
but stay tuned. We’ve got more in the debate coming up in part
2 when Tony Blair will be answering your questions.
[End of part 1]
Trevor Nelson
Welcome back. We’re with British Prime Minister
Tony Blair and the subject of discussion is the conflict with
Iraq, ‘Is War the Answer?’ One of the reasons being put forward
to justify military action is it will help with the war on terror
and stop Saddam Hussein giving weapons of mass destruction to
the likes of Osama bin Laden and his network of Al Qaida terrorists,
but some say any war in Iraq will play into the hands of any terrorists
we’re trying to stop. Take a look at this.
Voice over
On September 11 2001 over 3,000 people died when
Al Qaida terrorists destroyed New York’s World Trade Centre. America
declared a war on terror and led a UN war against Afghanistan
which gave refuge to the Al Qaida terrorists. Some critics say
the US foreign policy provoked the attacks arguing America does
not understand Muslim anger at military and economic support for
Israel. The Palestinians should be given a nation state.
Trevor Nelson
Let’s go straight to the next question which comes
from Dave Gibson from the United Kingdom.
Dave Gibson, British, aged 23
Mr Blair, the absolute disdain that you’ve shown
the Iraqi people continuously over the past few years breeds anti-West
sentiment in the Middle East. That’s a fact. It’s a fact. And
I’m sure you won’t argue that. Can you not see that by waging
war in Iraq now and killing thousands of innocent people, you
will not be reducing the threat of terrorist activity in the United
Kingdom in Europe like you say you will? You will only be increasing
it. Can you not see that?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
First of all, I don’t agree with you, I’m afraid,
at all, that we’ve shown disdain for the Iraqi people. And I also
would say to you that the person who’s shown most disdain for
the Iraqi people is Saddam Hussein. It’s not me who’s killed thousands
of Iraqis every year; it’s him. Secondly, I think that the issue
to do with terrorism – there are many reasons for the terrorism,
but nothing can ever justify the terrorism, and we just had September
11th mentioned there a moment or two ago. America didn’t attack
Al Qaida . Al Qaida attacked America. Let’s get this the right
way round. And I don’t believe, frankly, with these terrorist
groups, that it matters what we do. They will still attack us
because they detest everything we have and stand for and the freedoms
we have. Where I would actually say to you is the real issue,
however, for where people have some, in my view, misguided sympathy
for terrorists – I think the single thing that is a real issue
is the issue to do with the Middle East peace process and the
Israeli/ Palestinian issue, and one of the things that I believe
passionately is that, irrespective of what happens in Iraq, we
have to find a way of restarting that peace process, and, if you
want to know, I think that is the cause of more concern in the
Arab and Muslim world than a liking for Saddam Hussein because
I don’t believe there is such.
Trevor Nelson
I think he’s opened up a good argument here. Everyone
has an opinion. I’ll go to this gentleman at the back here.
Sharif Dawoud, British Palestinian, aged 18
As a Palestinian, I’d just pick up on a point
you said. In terms of Iraq and wiping out terrorism within Iraq,
Ariel Sharon last week, his Minister said they’d do several attacks
in Hizbullah in South Lebanon to settle told scores. I’m sure
you will agree that will make any terrorist situation worse in
the Middle East.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
The whole situation makes everything worse. It’s
wrong also that you still have innocent Israeli citizens blown
up in cafes, restaurants, discotheques. The whole situation is
terrible. I spent the early part of this week into the early hours
of Wednesday morning on the Northern Ireland peace process. 5
years ago, the Northern Ireland peace process was in a worse shape
than the Middle East peace process and what I’m saying to you
is we can argue about the actions taken by the Israelis, we can
argue about terrorism. In the end, the only way of getting this
peace process back on track again is to re-start negotiations
based on recognition by the Arab world of Israel and a viable
Palestinian state so that the Palestinians have their own state,
and, honestly, we can all have our own positions on this and condemn
Israel or condemn the Palestinians or Hizbullah or whatever it
is. You will never get a peaceful situation there until you get
a final negotiated settlement.
Sharif Dawoud, British Palestinian, aged 18
Should it be through the United Nations, the negotiated
settlement?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I think at the end as both sides accept they’ve
got to do the deal with, but anyway, if the UN European Union
or American can help, they should.
Sharif Dawoud, British Palestinian, aged 18
If Israel has never complied with one of the United
Nations resolutions, why would they ever comply with any of the
Palestinians’ resolutions?
Trevor Nelson
Can I stop you there? I want to find out some
other opinions on the Arab/Israeli situation. Have you got an
opinion?
Akouavi Assogba, French, aged 22
Yes I’m from France. And I want to know your mind
about confusion between terrorists or from one country and terrorism
round the world because we have a new situation where terrorism
can be in the UK, can be in France, can be in the United States.
Trevor Nelson
I’ll allow that even though it isn’t the Arab
Israeli situation completely. Go ahead.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Well, the danger that I see – I mean, look, let
me try and explain to you why I think this is such a big issue
and terrorism and the states with weapons of mass destruction
come together. This is my reasoning. You’re absolutely right.
All round Europe, all round the world, these terrorist cells are
operating and this is a terrorism that will cause literally as
much death as it can. If these people could have killed 30,000
people on September 11th, not 3,000, they would have killed 30,000.
These states that are developing or proliferating or trading in
these weapons of mass destruction are – at some point – these
things are coming together. This is why this is so important and
the reason why you have to take a stand as an international community
through the UN, because that’s how I think it should be dealt
with. If you don’t take a stand now, the states will grow in power
and what you’ll find is the terrorist cells at some point manage
to get hold of the ability to cause death on a massive scale and,
frankly, then, it’s not a matter whether they’re in France, in
the UK, or in Spain, or Bali, Indonesia, these terrorists will
kill where ever they can kill and that’s why we have to deal with
this issue.
Trevor Nelson
Can I open up this Arab/Israeli conflict again
please?
Oz Shtrosberg, Israeli, aged 19
Mr Blair, as an Israeli, I feel it is crucial,
as we’ve seen in this debate even, that the public understands
the difference, the totally clear difference, between the Iraqi
conflict and the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. Those two
are two separate tracks; even though they have influenced one
another, they’re not connected at all. I would say, personally,
calling or even comparing Saddam Hussein’s regime and the Israeli
government is both factually incorrect and morally distressful.
I’d like to hear your comments and your possible clarification
of this issue.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I agree, obviously, and let’s not forget Israel
is a democracy. We may not agree with everything the Israeli Government
does, but it’s elected. It’s also important to point out there
are UN resolutions in respect of Israel, but also in respect of
Palestinians and in respect of the Arab world. The reason I feel
so strongly about this issue is because of my experience through
Northern Ireland, which is different, but there are many similarities
where you get two groups of people, in fact, who’ve got to live
side by side who end up, as a result of terrorism, hating, detesting
– because what the terrorists do is they do a terrorist act, which
is a terrible act, they cause terrible damage; the state then
retaliates because it has to. You know, I keep saying to people
when they criticise Israel in these circumstances, any government
anywhere in the Western world whose people were being blown up
in a cafe, discotheque or restaurant would be out after the people
doing it. In the end, however, that’s not an answer. The only
answer is to work out a peaceful solution and the one advantage
we have at the present situation with this Arab/Israeli/Palestinian
business is there is now universal acceptance of the two-state
solution and I hope in Israel too, incidentally, because I think
that’s important, and, if there is, the rest is negotiation, so
what we need is a way of ensuring that we get the proper security
measures in place so that the Palestinians can actually prevent
– genuinely prevent – this terrorism arising, then we need to
get back to the negotiating table on the basis of the two-state
solution. All I can say is I will work and do as much as I can
to achieve that.
Trevor Nelson
We’ve got to move on. We’ve got loads to get through
and I’d like to introduce a new subject by showing you some more
results from our survey. We asked visitors to our website if they
believe US and UK claims that oil is not a motivating factor in
the war in Iraq. Only 17 % believe oil has nothing to do with
the war, whilst 83% said they didn’t believe the US and UK Government’s
claims and thought oil was a motivating factor. So that gives
you a flavour of just how much faith our viewers do have in the
words of politicians. But that’s true. That’s a survey. It also
sets up the next question, which comes from Manuel Zani who is
from Italy.
Manuel Zani, Italian, aged 22
Mr Blair, I think the purpose of this war is to
get control over Iraqi oil. If you don’t agree, please provide
us with the evidence.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Let me provide you with two bits of evidence or
argument here. The first is, let me say, for the UK, we’re an
exporter of oil. So, we don’t need Iraqi’s oil. We export oil.
Secondly, there is a very simple way of dealing with this issue
because whatever happens – what happens in a situation like this,
there is always a conspiracy theory. It’s not to do with the reasons
they say: it’s some terrible conspiracy machination, we want to
seize the Iraqi oil.
A simple way out of this: we should make sure,
if there is a conflict, in any post-conflict Iraq there is a proper
UN mandate for Iraq and that oil goes into a trust fund and we
don’t touch it, the Americans don’t touch it without UN authority.
Now, we can’t say fairer than that. And the idea that this is
about oil, I understand why people think it because they’re told
it the whole time. We may be right, we may be wrong, but it’s
nothing to do with oil – not for us, not for the UK, not for the
US – and the best way of testing that is let the thing be done
under a proper UN mandate so no one touches the Iraqi oil except
where it’s needed for the Iraqi people because it’s their oil,
not ours.
Carolina Ramos Garcia, Spanish, aged 21
Carolina from Spain. Hello, Mr Blair. In Russia
and in France have very big interest with Saddam about oil. You
think if they don’t have this interest as you think so with Saddam,
would they support Spain, UK and USA and carry in this? Will they
help you? Will they support this thing?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
This is where I put my diplomatic hat on, okay,
but, I mean, that’s a question that they have to answer. I mean,
look, I genuinely believe – I believe there are people who oppose
war for perfectly good reasons. Indeed, I oppose war unless it’s
the last resort. But, we don’t have any oil interest there. I
mean, you’re right in saying that.
Carolina Ramos Garcia
Not you, about France and Russia. Do they have
interests with Saddam?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I know what you’re asking me.
Carolina Ramos Garcia
I don’t know it. I’m not political.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I think there are outstanding debts and contracts
in respect of France and Russia and Iraq, but I’m not saying that’s
the reason they’re taking the position they’re taking.
Trevor Nelson
Can I say Prime Minister that makes oil a factor
in the possibility of war because if those countries have an interest
in oil, isn’t that a problem with you getting support from those
countries to go to war with Iraq?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
That’s up to them. I’m not going to sit here and
answer for – you can answer for France.
Trevor Nelson
Henry Hughes, where are you? You’ve got something
to say on oil.
Henry Hughes, British, aged 24
No, my question is more in relation to the Kurdish/Turkish
conflict, which is you were mentioning the Israel/Palestinian
conflict. The other major barrier I see to the Middle East accepting
the humanitarian motives of the West is the Turkish persecution
of the Kurds. Given that there have been three military intrusions
by the Turkish army to the Kurdish areas protected by the No Fly
Zone, do you think you can provide any guarantee to the Kurdish
people that they won’t be occupied by the Turkish army in any
invasion of Iraq?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Yes, I think we can provide that and you’re right
in saying our No Fly Zones protected people in that Northern Iraq,
which is one reason incidentally why there is some autonomy there
from Saddam and the conditions of people there are a lot better
there than Central and Southern Iraq. And one thing I want to
make absolutely clear, if there is conflict we will make it quite
explicit that the territorial integrity of Iraq should not be
interfered with, not by us, not by anybody else.
Trevor Nelson
Can I get back on oil because I’m a bit obsessed
with oil; because if we’re an exporter of oil, I wonder why our
oil prices are so high? Has anyone else got a viewpoint on oil?
It’s got to be on oil for me. Anyone got something strong to say
on oil?
Jenny Vagan, Norwegian, aged 26
I come from Norway which is the third biggest
oil producing country and I recently read that two-thirds of the
oil reserves of oil are in the Middle East, so we know in Norway
we’re a very rich country right now, but we know in maybe 30 years
there is not going to be very much oil left, so I’m thinking there
must be an interest of conflict in the Middle East and I want
to here an opinion on that.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
All I can say is what I’ve said before. Yes, it’s
true there are a lot of oil reserves in the Middle East. There
are a lot of oil and gas reserves elsewhere. But, you know, there
are all sorts of different countries that can produce oil and,
as I said to somebody once, if oil was the reason, if we wanted
more Iraqi oil to be produced, I don’t doubt if we went to Saddam
tomorrow and said, "Produce more Iraqi oil," he’d produce
it for us.
Jenny Vagan, Norwegian, aged 26
It’s not only that; it’s about the Middle East.
You have the Palestinian conflict with Israel and Palestinians
and it seems to me the West is kind of like imperialism. You want
to control the Middle East. Is that correct?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
No, I don’t think it is. There are two separate
things. There is the issue of oil, but the reason why people are
anxious to get a solution on the Israeli/Palestinian issue is
because of its consequences in instability in the region, and
therefore of the world, are so great.
Jenny Vagan, Norwegian, aged 26
You call that consequences, but it’s like if you
look at the conflict you have the American that supports Israel
with weapons and you have the Palestinian people with rocks and
stone. It’s not a fair conflict. Like you call them terrorists,
but they don’t have any weapons, they don’t have any money, they
don’t have any support.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I don’t call Palestinians terrorists by any means
at all, but there are terrorist acts that take place against Israel.
What I’m saying is you’ve got to stop both things.
Jenny Vagan, Norwegian, aged 26
Do you think America is a decent peace negotiator
in that conflict?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
All I can you tell is one thing I had a discussion
with President Bush about a couple of weeks ago and I believe
he does want to move this process forward. We, in Britain, have
held a conference here to try and get some political reform on
the Palestinian side so they can have a better chance of negotiating.
And it’s fair to say that this American President who is the first
American President to commit himself to two states, and the reason
I think there is a chance of having peace in the Palestinian issue
is for the first time I think the Arab world is prepared – it
hasn’t yet, but I think it is prepared to recognise Israel explicitly,
so that the issue which affects Israelis, which is the idea they’re
surrounded by countries who want to destroy them, that issue is
taken away. And the other thing is everybody now accepts there
should be a viable Palestinian state. I think there is a chance
there if we’re prepared to take them. What I’d like to see is
as much energy and commitment going to get this peace process
started as we’re showing confronting Saddam over weapons of mass
destruction.
Trevor Nelson
Thank you, Prime Minister. There is a lot of energy
and commitment being shown. We’ve got to stop there, but we’ll
be back right after the break with more questions for Tony Blair.
[End of part 2]
Trevor Nelson
Welcome back. British Prime Minister Tony Blair
has been answering questions from our international studio audience
from 24 different countries and I think it’s fair to say most
of them are against the idea of war, but let’s stop for a moment
to look at the case for military action on humanitarian grounds.
There is no disputing Saddam Hussein has a terrible human rights
record. Take a look at this-
Voice over
Saddam Hussein is a cold-blooded killer who murdered
his way to power in Iraq. He has used chemical weapons against
his own people in 1988. His massive chemical attack on the Kurds
killed 5,000 and injured 10,000 more. He regularly uses the following
methods of torture: rape by broken bottle; electric shock to the
genitals; eye gouging; pulling out of fingernails and beatings;
acid baths. He’s even murdered members of his own family to maintain
power. After the invasion of Kuwait he used foreign nationals
in Iraq as human shields against attack. Up to 4 million people
have fled Iraq rather than live under Saddam Hussein. Iraqis are
now the second largest group of refugees in the world.
Trevor Nelson
That’s pretty shocking stuff. Let’s hear a question
now from Joan Alice, an Iraqi living in the UK.
Juan Allos, Iraqi/British, aged 23
Mr Blair, I was in Iraq during the Gulf war and
so I know what it’s like to be at the receiving end of military
strikes you’re about to unleash on Iraq. My question for you is
this. Even though overall I agree with your objective of regime
change, I don’t agree with the price you’re willing to pay for
it, and my question for you is: by making a moral case for war,
you are insinuating that the ends justify the means and so how
do you judge the number of lives that are worth sacrificing to
achieve your end objective?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
That’s a very good question. I don’t believe the
ends justify the means, which is why what I wanted to do was to
have this resolved peacefully. I mean, the title of the programme
is, ‘Is War the Answer?’ I would answer that no, it’s not the
answer – certainly not the first answer. The first answer is voluntary
disarmament. We’re left in a situation where if he doesn’t disarm
we have to do it by force, if he’s not prepared to leave voluntarily
which is also a way of avoiding war. All I can say to you is we
will try to do this with the minimum of civilian casualties and
do it with the maximum protection for the Iraqi people. Now, war
is war, which is why it should only ever be the last resort because
innocent people die as well as guilty people in wars, so I agree
with you, but the alternative is to leave them there with these
weapons in charge of Iraq.
Juan Allos, Iraqi/British, aged 23
You say that we’ll try and keep casualties to
a minimum and I appreciate that, but if you look at UN figures
they estimate half a million dead Iraqis. That’s a fact. That’s
their estimates. It’s not even Iraqi propaganda. That’s UN figures.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
If I thought we were going to kill half a million
Iraqis, I would be calling-
Juan Allos, Iraqi/British, aged 23
That’s the UN report that came out last week.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I have to say I’ve never seen that report and
I really don’t believe the casualties in a war would be anything
remotely approaching that figure.
Trevor Nelson
Can I open it up to other people? I know you’re
Iraqi.
Ammar Hassan, Iraqi/British, aged 23
I am Iraqi and I was born in Baghdad, Mr Tony
Blair, and I would like for you to remove Saddam Hussein from
his evil regime. The world has taken notice about the Iraq situation,
but they’ve never talked about Saddam the evil dictator who has
systematically killed innocent people. People are dying as we
speak. We’re having this debate. People are dying in Iraq. There
is Iraq is under fire and I want you to stop the flame and that
is Saddam Hussein. Can you guarantee me that this is going to
happen and that the liberation of Iraq will be for the good of
human kind? And it’s a civilised and a moral issue and no international
world has addressed this issue, that they need to look at Saddam
Hussein.
Trevor Nelson
Think you’ve made your point.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
You have made your point and, if we take military
action to remove the regime, we’ll remove it, and I think what’s
important then is we then have to make sure that we are determined
to have any post-conflict situation in Iraq done for the betterment
of the conditions of the Iraqi people.
Ammar Hassan, Iraqi/British, aged 23
I applaud your courage and your leadership because
you are the first British Prime Minister to tackle Saddam head
on and not hide behind other people and I am hoping that once
and for all that Iraqi people will have peace and they will have
their dignity and they will have the right to live in a free,
democratic state.
Trevor Nelson
I think we all want that for the Iraqi people.
Got something to say?
Osman Anwar, British Palestinian, aged 23
We all understand, Tony Blair, that Saddam Hussein
is a wicked man and his regime is pretty bad, but it gives hypocrisy
a bad name when throughout the eighties and nineties we have armed
him during the Iran/Iraq war. The CIA brought the Baath Party
into power, helped them, then go round to say because he has these
weapons we need to disarm him. Would it not be easier and better
to stop the arms trade, pass a resolution through the United Nations
to curtail such an industry to solve the problem?
Trevor Nelson
We get your question – can you be as brief as
possible?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
Very briefly, first of all, I’ve never supplied
Saddam Hussein or his regime with anything.
Osman Anwar, British Palestinian, aged 23
Previous British governments have. Not saying
you particularly.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I say to you a lot of the stories about this and
even American supplies of arms are hugely exaggerated. Apart from
that, I agree we should have rules applied to the arms trade and
the European Union does have rules applied to the arms trade and
that’s important, but I simply say to you there is no way by simply
passing resolutions are we going to prevent Saddam doing what
he’s doing because we’ve been passing them for 12 years.
Trevor Nelson
We are running out of time and I’d like to move
on to the last of our results from the online survey, which is
about the need for a second UN resolution to authorise any war
on Iraq. We asked visitors to MTV websites across Europe would
they agree with an attack on Iraq without a second UN resolution?
Only 17 % of people said they would. When asked if they would
back a war with a new resolution, the number rises to 44 per cent.
Still a minority, but none the less getting a second UN resolution
would at least persuade some people of the need for war. Let’s
go to our next question which comes from Janina Herhoffer.
Janina Herhoffer, German, aged 24
This is one of my questions to you, Mr Blair.
Would you go ahead, because you never spoke about that opposite
to Mr Bush, without a second UN resolution?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
What I’ve said about that is if there was a veto
applied by one of the countries with a veto or by countries that
I thought were applying the veto unreasonably, in those circumstances
we would, but we’re fighting very hard to get a second resolution
through and, as we speak now, I still believe we will get that
second resolution, and the reason why I was so insistent last
year that this matter was dealt with through the United Nations
is I think the way to deal with these issues is through the UN,
so I don’t want to go outside of the UN, but I just point out
to you last November we did pass that resolution saying Saddam
had to disarm. So, having passed that, it’s important we implement
it.
Trevor Nelson
Is Bart about?
Bart Woord, Dutch, aged 19
You are so busy with convincing like members of
the Security Council; start convincing people in the street. We
saw in the poll the majority of the people – ordinary people –
won’t agree with the war as a result of the second resolution.
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I’m here and you’re not members of the Security
Council. I’m trying to have a dialogue all the time with people
and I’m very happy to do that.
Bart Woord, Dutch, aged 19
It’s not really working, is it?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
You say it’s not really working. The vast majority
of people in my country certainly, I think, would support action
with a UN resolution and that’s what I’m working for. And, I also
don’t quite agree either that people don’t consider Saddam a threat.
I think, in fact I tell you where I think opinion is, although
it’s important to lead opinion as well as to support it – I think
opinion does believe Saddam is a bad man does, believe he’s a
threat. The question people are asking is, is this the only way
of dealing with it? That’s more where people’s minds are and their
worries are, and part of what I’m saying is, no, it’s not the
only way of dealing with it, but we do need him to decide he’s
going to disarm voluntarily, otherwise we’re left with not doing
it at all.
Trevor Nelson
I’d like to open up for any questions at all from
the floor. I know you’ve been very eager. Any questions on any
topic to do with the war?
Reem Elmanan, Swedish, aged 23
Throughout history countries have been entering
wars to benefit their economies. This is the US and other countries
during World War Two because of the Great Depression. Can you
convince us that this isn’t the case?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I think it’s always been a mixture of motives.
My father fought for my country in World War Two against fascism
and against the Nazis. I think that there is a link. I think the
great thing about today’s world which is shown by the audience
here is it is interdependent and that’s one of the reasons why
you need strong international institutions today because, in fact,
I can’t think of a situation where you could have a serious conflict
in one part of the world that doesn’t affect the whole of the
world, but the motivation for this is not economic. Frankly, there
are worries in the economy in the markets because of the prospect
of conflict, so we’re doing it because we think that the security
of our people will be put at risk unless we take a stand against
this issue now.
Trevor Nelson
Some quick fire ones. Yes?
Yasser Alaskary, Iraqi/British, aged 22
As an Iraqi, like most Iraqis inside Iraq, our
concern isn’t a war. We want military action to remove Saddam.
Our concern is what replaces this regime. Will you make a clear
commitment that in the case of war and the regime being removed
will Britain work towards establishing a genuine democracy which
is proportionately representative of the population?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I tell you what we’ll work towards because we’ve
got to be careful we don’t set ourselves a task in a timeframe
that’s unrealistic, but we’ll work towards making sure that Iraq
has a genuinely representative government and make sure that we
try to, with the United Nations, construct a path for Iraq to
travel along where there are greater human rights for people,
greater liberties, and greater democracy. I can’t sit here and
determine exactly how that’s going to happen. We need to discuss
that with people in Iraq as well. I’ve got no doubt at all we
must not undertake this action unless we’re going to achieve by
it something better in terms of the rule in Iraq for Iraqi people.
Exactly the form of that is a matter of discussion.
Trevor Nelson
I think that’s fine. The last question – I was
going to talk about Afghanistan there but ran out of time. Last
question today. Someone who hasn’t asked a question? Gentleman
at the back?
Zarko Panic, Serbian, aged 20
I’m wondering, if you do go to war, would you
rather see Hussein eliminated or maybe in a tribunal like President
Milosovic’s?
Prime Minister Tony Blair
I think there is a very good case for making sure
that Saddam faces trial, but I think the most important thing
is to remove the regime from power and then I think we’ve got
to consider the ways after that. And I do acknowledge that one
difficulty with saying he should be allowed to go into exile is
that in a sense that lets him off some of the crimes that he’s
committed, but in the interests of avoiding war I’d be prepared
to do that. I think your example in Serbia is a very good example
because a lot of people told us at the time of Kosovo when we
were fighting to help Muslims in Kosovo – a lot of people told
us we’d make the situation in Serbia worse, and today Serbia is
a democracy and Milosovic has gone. In Afghanistan, for all the
difficulties, it’s still better in Afghanistan today than it was
when the Taliban were in charge.
Trevor Nelson
I’ve got to stop you there. That’s all we have
time for. I’d like to thank the Prime Minister for joining us
and sharing his thoughts and thanks to our studio audience, particularly
those of you who flew in from around the world. That is it. Once
again, thank you very much Prime Minister.
[applause]
[Close]