Tony Blair talks to Newsnight - Part 2
Prime Minister, it's getting on
for nine months since September
11th. In your conference speech,
you talked about the kaleidoscope
having been shaken, the pieces
being in flux. Soon they will
settle again. Before they do, let
us re-order the world around us.
What has actually changed since
In Afghanistan a lot has changed.
The Taliban have gone, a brutal
and repressive regime. They have
the chance of a decent and prosperous
future. If we look at what's
happening with the destruction of
the poppy crop, something like a
fifth of the crop has been
destroyed with a street value of
around about three times the
amount of the heroin on the British
streets. I think the people there,
if you were to talk to them, think
they have hope for the future again.
In Africa, we are trying to put
together the big partnership
agreement for Africa, more trade,
better aid, debt relief, conflict
resolution. I think we're on track
to achieve that. In the Middle East,
I'm afraid, things have gone
We can look at some of those areas
individually in a moment. Just on
Afghanistan, how long will the
Marines be staying there?
I don't know. We will hand over the
leadership of the security force in
the next few weeks. But then we
will stay on in some capacity or
other to try to help the Afghans to
develop their own army and security
So this is an open-ended commitment,
Well, it is not an open-ended
commitment. And let's not
exaggerate the number of people we
have in Afghanistan. I think there
are around about 1,300 troops now
in Kabul. I can't say exactly when
we'll get every last one of those
out. But I think the work we're
doing there is worthwhile. We have
to stick with it and the
reconstruction of Afghanistan.
You talked about the campaign
remaining in place to make sure all
our objectives are secure,
including tracking down those
responsible for terror. Given that
we've failed to find Osama Bin
Laden, the campaign has not been
a success, has it?
Again, I would say, yes it has been
a success. But it is not complete
yet. If you look at the Al-Qaeda
terrorist network, I'm not saying
that they won't still try to carry
out terrorist acts, but they have
been wiped out, effectively, in
Afghanistan. They're on the run...
Bin Laden was the top priority
Yes but I've got no doubt at all
that in the end we will secure him.
But, if you look at what has
happened over the past few months,
it would be hard to say that the
Al-Qaeda network is not effectively
Do you have any idea where he is?
None at all?
No. If we knew where he was we
would go and get him. We can't be
sure. We simply cannot be sure what
People talked about post-September
11th of a conflict between good and
evil. Do you believe that there is
an axis of evil?
I believe that weapons of mass
destruction are a real evil, yes. I
certainly do believe that.
I note that you have never used the
phrase "axis of evil" yourself.
We make our own speeches. I think
the President was right to say
weapons of mass destruction are a
real issue and evil in the world.
People sometimes think I've come to
this in response to what the US has
been saying and doing. Three days
after 11th September in my first
statement in the House of Commons,
I said the next big issue after
international terrorism is weapons
of mass destruction. I believe that,
incidentally. I think that people
can be really blind to the dangers
of this issue and the capacity of
unstable, often dictatorial and
repressive states to acquire
weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic and nuclear missile
capability. That is a real threat.
But the phrase "axis of evil" is a
silly phrase. Isn't it?
No, I don't agree it is a silly
You think there is an axis of evil?
As I said to you, I think weapons
of mass destruction...
That is another issue. Do you
believe there is an axis of evil?
I believe, as I said to you, that
weapons of mass destruction are a
real evil in the world. Those
people who combine together... Look,
if you want me to - if what you're
trying to do is get me to rewrite
my speeches, I'm not.
Not at all, Prime Minister.
I'm merely asking if you think there's
an axis of evil.
What I'm saying to you is that what
the President was referring to is the
issue of weapons of mass destruction
and support for international terrorism.
He was referring to specific countries,
Exactly. There are real issues in
respect of all those countries.
Do you think Iran is part of an axis
of evil as he appears to think?
I think Iran in certain of the actions
that it takes, has the capacity to
threaten the outside world. I favour
a process of engagement with Iran
but engagement on terms that makes
it very clear that they cannot carry
on supporting terrorist groups or
dealing in and acquiring WMD
As you say, we have relations with
Iran. Do you believe they're part of
this axis of evil?
As I've just said to you, I think certain things they're doing re wrong and need to be counted.
Do you believe that George Bush is right when he describes Ariel Sharon as a man of peace?
Again, what I believe is that PM Sharon does want to see a long-term solution in the Middle East. I believe he does want to see that. But I don't think we'll get such a solution unless there is very, very concerted international intervention.
Do you think Ariel Sharon is a man of peace?
Again, I don't intend to use phrases other people use, but, do I believe that he wants to see peace in the Middle East, yes, I do.
But I also believe that if we're going to get that peace in the Middle East, we're going to have to take an entirely fresh attitude.
Do you believe that, as George
Bush claims, Yasser Arafat has
betrayed his people? His phrase.
Well, I do believe that he's let
down the Palestinian people. Yes, I
do believe that. I think there was
a deal on offer from Prime Minister
Barak some time ago that should
have been accepted and I don't
think the Palestinians have done
all they could to bear down on a
scourge of terrorism.
Do you think he's betrayed his
Well, "betrayed his people" is one
way of putting it. I would say to
you that if he is to deliver for
his people, he has got to enter
into a proper negotiated process,
and they have to, once we help them
with the capability of addressing
these security issues, he has to
address them. So you can sit here
and put to me phrases that
President Bush and other leaders
have used all day. I choose my own phrases. I choose my own way. But I believe that the American policy of engagement in the Middle East is the right policy.
But you choose your own phrases
because, actually, there are
significant differences between the
way this country views the world
and the way that George Bush's
administration views the world.
I don't believe there are really
significant differences, no.
Do you agree with him on Iraq, that
there has to be a toppling of
I certainly believe that getting
rid of Saddam would be highly
desirable. It's always been the
American policy to get rid of
Saddam Hussein. That isn't to say
they're about to launch military
We endorse the policy, do we?
I certainly endorse the policy of doing everything we can to get rid of Saddam Hussein if at all possible.
Everything we can, including military means?
That depends, as I've said, many times.
If the inspectors are allowed back in by Saddam, would you still favour toppling him?
If he lets the weapons inspectors back in unconditionally, anywhere, any time, any place, then of course that makes a difference. But there's absolutely no sign that he's prepared to do so.
But if he were to do so...
Let us wait and see if that eventuality happens.
But that's what you want him to do.
We're saying we want the weapons inspectors back in?
And that's exactly what President Bush has said too.
If he does, we will then cease to think he should be toppled.
No. If he does do that, then the weapons inspectors have got to go back in and be allowed to do their job. But don't lets be under any illusions about this. For ten years, he has been in breach of UN security resolutions. For ten years, the weapons inspectors should gave been in there, done their work, the weapons should have been destroyed.
But this is key to how he might be persuaded - if persuasion is possible.
If he lets the weapons inspectors back in, does he still get toppled?
If he lets them back in of course that makes a difference to the situation. But let us see whether he does that and, what is more, let us see if the weapons inspectors are able to get back in and do their job,
but there's no sign at the moment that he's allowed to let them back in unconditionally to do the work that they should have been doing over the last few years but have been prevented from doing.
But that is not the American position. The American position is George Bush, "I've made up my mind that Saddam needs to go."
That has been the American position
for years, under President Clinton
It is not your position though, is
My position is that it would be
highly desirable if Saddam Hussein
was got rid of. I certainly agree
But you haven't made up your mind
that Saddam needs to go.
I have certainly made up my mind,
as indeed any sensible person would
that the region in the world, most
of all the people of Iraq, would be
in a far better position without
Saddam Hussein. If you then make
the leap, does that mean that
military action is imminent or
about to happen? No, we've never
said that. We have said here is an
issue, it has to be dealt with, we
will deal with it but how we'll
deal with it is an open question.
But you're not then acting in good
faith, are you, when you say he has
to let back in the weapons
No, we are. I've just said to you,
that is the very demand we make on
him. Of course, it would make a
difference to the situation. But
they have to be able to go back in
there and do the work they were
able... they were supposed to do
last time but were unable to do.
Would military operations against
Iraq have to, in your judgement, be
endorsed by the United Nations?
They have to be compliant with UN
law, as we did the last time.
Whether that needs another specific
UN resolution is not an issue yet
because we simply do not know what
military action we might or might
When are you going to publish the
dossier of evidence you have?
When we consider it right to do so.
But it currently exists?
Oh, there's masses of evidence
about what Saddam's up to. I don't
think anyone is any dispute about
You said you were going to publish
We didn't give a specific time. We
will publish it. But if I was to
start publishing it now you would
probably think we're about to take
action next week. We're not.
So when you publish it, we're about
to take action?
No, I didn't say that either. I
merely said that we do not intend
to publish it now but we will
publish it at the appropriate time.
However, if anyone wants to see
what Saddam Hussein has been doing
over the past decade, and indeed
before then, you need only read the
weapons inspectors reports already
in the public domain and published.
This is a person who, after all,
has killed tens of thousands of his
own people, including by chemical
weapons. He started the war against
Iran, which 1 million people lost
their lives. He invaded Kuwait. He
is even now in the situation of
developing weapons of mass
destruction in breach of every
Security Council resolution there
is. This is a thoroughly bad person.
If you are talking about evil, I
think it probably is personified in
Saddam Hussein and the regime he
runs. Does that mean we're about to
take military action? No. It means
weapons of mass destruction are an
issue. Saddam Hussein is an issue.
It will be far better if he was not
leading Iraq, the whole of the
world would be safer if that were
the case. But we are taking no
decisions on whatever action they
follow as a result of those
The reason people worry about your
relationship with George Bush is
that it seems when push comes to
shove that the United States will
just please itself. When you look
at matters which directly concern
the wellbeing of this country, for
example, the Kyoto climate change
agreement, or steel exports, the
United States will just drive a
coach and horses through any kind
of international agreement it finds
I really don't agree with you. What
is true to say is that the US will
look after its own national
interests as other countries do.
But we don't break agreements
Hang on. Let's take it step by step.
In respect of trade, yes, there is
a big battle between the EU and
America at the moment over steel.
However, there have been many such
battles in the past, some of which
Europe frankly has been on the
wrong side of. That is simply
international life. On Kyoto, there
is a difference of opinion. We have
made that clear. But if you look at
the big issues... For example, let
me take three issues. How we dealt
with Afghanistan, done by an
international coalition. George
Bush acted in a measured sensible
way throughout with international
support. Russia, the new
relationship with Russia and NATO
that we here and others have
pioneered and is now coming to
fruition. Massive change and step
forward. The relationship with
Africa, for example, where the
Americans are now part of this G8
process to form a new partnership
with Africa. I think those things
are very, very, very important
indeed. Does that mean that we
will always agree on absolutely
everything? No, of course not. It
never happens. I want to say this
to you because I believe it
passionately. People who try to
pull apart Britain and America or
Europe and America are doing a
disservice to all of us. I mean, I
passionately believe that.
You know what the accusation is,
they say you're a poodle.
Yeah, of course. That's what people do. What they want to do is to pull us apart, to say to people you have to choose between somehow your relationship with Europe, your relationship with America. I totally, fundamentally, dispute that. We are stronger if we're a partner of America in Europe, and we are stronger, with Europe, if we are a partner of America.
You talk about standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the old cliché way with the United States. Other people see them walking all over you whenever they wish.
In respect of what, exactly?
Well, take steel for example. We stand shoulder-to-shoulder. They...
We have a dispute over steel. There have been trade disputes before that have gone both ways.
Are you disappointed in American behaviour in instances like this?
I disagree with what they're doing on steel, as I've said before. But the idea that that means the whole of the British-American relationship should be set at nought is absurd. What unites us is infinitely more important than what divides us. In this war against international terrorism, in the engagement with the world, it is of fundamental importance that Britain works with America. In issues like the Middle East, it is of fundamental importance that we work together.
But steel is British jobs.
Of course. It is American jobs too, so you have a trade dispute. You had a trade dispute the other way between Europe and America a short time ago. There are trade disputes that go on the whole time. The point that I'm making to you is that there are people, often Euro-sceptics, here who would like to say, "You should be with America, not with Europe." There are also people who want to say, "You should be with Europe and not America." I tell you, and I believed this before I became Prime Minister, I believe with all the passion of five years' experience now in the job, that is a fundamentally mistaken position. Britain should be a big player, strong player in Europe and we should be fulsome partners of the United States of America.
So there is a distinctive British foreign policy. Does it have an ethical dimension still?
Of course it does, yeah.
How then can you publicly endorse a country which bans political parties, bans trade unions and uses institutional torture?
The country being?
Saudi Arabia? You called it a friend of the civilised world.
Yes, but it is also important to realise that if we want a secure progress in the Middle East, we should work with Saudi Arabia. I don't decide... Ethical foreign policy doesn't mean that you try to decide the government of every country of the world. You can't do that.
You called it a friend of the civilised world.
It is. In my view, what it is doing in respect of the Middle East now...
It chops people's arms off. It tortures people.
They have their culture, their way of life.
We have to respect that?
I'm not saying that we agree with these things. Of course we don't agree with them. What I'm saying is that if you look at the context of what's happening in the Middle East at the moment, it is important that we are partners with Saudi Arabia. I would say to you that an extremist political regime would be a lot worse for Saudi Arabia and for the world.
Why do you describe General Musharraf, who overthrew the government of Pakistan, also as
Because he is committed to returning the country to democracy, and that is important. Until he does so, Pakistan will remain not in the councils of the Commonwealth, as you know. But what he's done post-September 11th has been very important. It's important now. If India and Pakistan were to go to war with each other, think of the consequences of that.
Do you really believe that he is a man of courage and leadership?
I do actually think he was very courageous. I said those words after September 11th when, in the face of what could have been an enormously difficult situation in his own country, he decided to back the coalition against terrorism, rather than the Taliban. That was an act of courage. I can tell you, because I went there shortly afterwards, it took a lot of courage on his part.
People find it rather odd that you can endorse Saudi Arabia and its regime or General Musharraf, whose taking of power we deplored, as being consistent with a foreign policy which has an ethical dimension.
But I didn't say to you that I endorse... I mean, for example, in respect of President Musharraf, we've made it clear we expect Pakistan to return to democracy.
Would you expect Saudi Arabia to become a democracy?
No, but as I said a moment or two ago, I do believe that the peace initiative they put forward in the Middle East recently has been extremely important. I welcome that. Look, when people talk about foreign policy that is based on certain values, I certainly hope that it is. Does that mean that in every single situation, you can have perfection? No. But what it does mean... I will give you two examples of what I would call a foreign policy based on values. Sierra Leone, where this country didn't need to but intervened and helped a country that would be taken over by a gang of gangsters and returned it to democracy. Kosovo, in the face of a lot of people telling us we were naive and foolish, we made sure the refugees could return to their country. In the end, we got rid of Milosevic and Serbia and now the whole of the Balkans is moving towards Europe and away from conflict. Does it mean that in every single situation I agree with all the policies of every Government that I deal with? Of course not, that would be absurd.
Let's turn to the euro. You have said that the tests will be applied probably after a couple of years of this Government. That takes us to next summer. Could they be applied sooner than that?
We simply have made no decision on when they should be applied. But they have to be decided by June 2003.
How soon after that could a referendum happen?
Again, that is an open question. But our commitment is, if the economic tests are passed, then we will put it to the people in a referendum. I can't start specifying to you the weeks or months in which that will happen. Obviously once the tests have been passed it is a live and active issue.
It is getting close.
Yes, it is, yeah.
Do you have any idea of what public opinion feels about the euro?
I think there are obviously divisions in public opinion, aren't there? You can see that as well as me. On the other hand, I think that people do believe that if the economics are right for the country, if it is right for jobs and industry and investment, then they are prepared to listen to the argument for joining. I believe... I've said to you before that I'm a huge supporter of our relationship with America, but I think Britain's destiny is as a leading player in Europe. I've no doubt about that at all.
Leading player in Europe doesn't necessarily mean being part of the euro.
It doesn't necessarily, no. If the economics were wrong and you stayed out, people would understand that. But if you stayed out for political reasons I think people wouldn't understand that. In my view, if the economics are in the right place, if the tests are met, then it is overwhelmingly in this country's interests to join.
How is Gordon Brown's review of the test going? Has he updated you?
We discuss it the whole time.
When you're at a...
Forgive me, we don't... We discuss
it with each other but not necessarily
Well, at some point we will, but... I didn't mean that personally, incidentally.
Not at all. I'm not bothered. But I'm curious as to why it's so secret.
Well, it's not secret. What I've learned with this issue is that speculation runs wild whatever you say about it.
We're looking at something that is going to happen next summer - 12, 13 months away. The fact that you won't talk about it...
I'm prepared to talk about it. I was simply saying I'm not prepared to disclose whatever discussions we're having on the tests and how they're progressing. You just set a whole lot of unhelpful speculation away.
When you're at a meeting of European leaders and they say, "Well, Tony, are you going to come into the euro?" What do you say, "Can I phone a friend?"
No, I say what I've just said to you - that if the economic tests are passed we'll put it to the people in a referendum. They accept that. They think it is an entirely sensible position.
But you must have a timetable?
Well, we do. I just said to you, June 2003. The tests have to be assessed before then. That is why we said before the election we will do it early in the next parliament.
You have a timetable for the tests. You must then have some sort of timetable for a referendum.
Well, I mean, I - we're not in the position of taking a decision as to precisely when you would hold a referendum after that. But let me truncate the discussion for you. If the tests are passed, then of course you will be putting the thing to the people in a referendum. You're not going to...
Well, as I say, it has not been decided precisely how you would do that. But I don't think there's an issue about a gap then. Once the tests are passed, then it is in the interests of your economy so we believe you go in.
It could be a matter of days or weeks.
I don't know exactly when you would hold a referendum. There has to be legislation...
Well, there's got to be legislation through Parliament. I'm not going to speculate on the precise timetable.
What is the longest amount of time it could safely be left?
There is really no point in speculating on it. There is not an issue there. The key date is not actually how long administratively it takes to get the referendum bill and so on. The key decision is if the economic tests are passed, are we going to then recommend it to people in a referendum. The answer to that is yes. The most important thing is to explain why. The reason for that is if it is right for British jobs and investment, British industry, it is the right thing for us to do as a country.
But once you have made that decision, you want to act upon it fast, don't you?
You would certainly want to act upon it, yes. What you're asking me to do, and I simply don't want... For reasons... There is no mystery in it, I simply don't want to pin myself down on a particular period of weeks or months. As for the date of the referendum, as I say, you have legislation, you have various discussions that you would have to have.
But we could expect a referendum perhaps next year?
I'm not going to speculate. I'm really not. I'm sorry.
Looking at where you stand in the great sweep of British Prime Ministers, why do you want to go down in history possibly as the man who surrendered the pound?
I don't want to go down in history as that person. But I certainly believe passionately that this country and its destiny lies in Europe. I believe that for 50 years we had a foreign policy in this country where we would say "It won't happen, this European co-operation." Then we don't like it when it is happening, then, a little bit later, "Oh, OK, we'll join in." That has been the pattern of British involvement in Europe for 50 years. That is not a British attitude to me. Britain is a strong country, takes positions. Britain is a country that says, "We can lead in certain situations." For us to be in the situation where Europe really, until we came to office, was totally isolated within the European community. I remember the first inter-governmental meeting I attended in Amsterdam in 1997. I mean, we were completely isolated, without a proper voice, without any strength in the European Union. Now we're leading debates on economic reform, on defence, playing an active part in the future of Europe, in the debate about the institutions of Europe, and on economic policy we have a totally changed set of relationships with the rest of Europe. Now, that's good for Britain. When you say, "Is it about surrendering the pound?" it is about he British national interest. I believe the British national interest is to be a strong part of Europe.
You would have no problem with history recording you as the man who killed the pound?
I would have no problem with history recording me as the person who said to the British people, "It is in our interests for us to be a key and major player in Europe and here is something that is in a single currency, is in our economic interests to do so." People here expect me to stick up for British jobs, British investment and British industry. The basic... What's fascinating to me too is that, if you look round the world today, the whole of the rest of the world is moving closer together. Look at what is happening in America, north and south, where they're thinking of creating a huge free trade area. If you look out in Asia, where they're talking now about possibilities of single currencies and so on, if you look at the ten countries queuing up to get inside the European Union, the whole world is moving closer together. What should we do, as Britain, with all the strengths of our history? Should we stand apart from the alliance right on our doorstep as a country? It would be crazy to do that. So, whether we join the euro or not depends on the economics. You have to have that in the right place. It is an economic union. We shouldn't, for political reasons, stand aside. I don't believe that would be a fulfillment of our national interest. I believe it would be a betrayal of our national interest.
Prime Minister, thank you.
This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.