British Defence Secretary: Press Conference - 29 October 2001
Published Wednesday, 23 October2001 10:45
The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon MP, held a press conference in London on 29 October 2001 at 1200.
Hoon: Good afternoon. Could I particularly welcome our Arabic and wider Muslim media friends to this particular briefing. I'm here today to tell you about our military operation in Afghanistan, but first I want to tell you how it fits into the wider strategy of the international campaign against terrorism. Our objectives are to bring the chief suspects behind the 11 September atrocities to account, to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan and to prevent that country ever being used as a base for global terrorism again.
First of all, this is a law enforcement campaign, the necessarily confidential business of intelligence gathering, investigations, arrests, leading in due course when the evidence is assembled, to trials and convictions. Second, this is a humanitarian campaign to help the Afghan people build a better future, and so end the anarchy, conflict and poverty that have turned their country into a breeding ground for terrorism.
And lastly, this is a military campaign. Some parts of the world are beyond the reach of Scotland Yard. Experience in the former Yugoslavia has taught us that military action is sometimes necessary to ensure that the law prevails. Let me emphasise: there is no hidden agenda; this is not a prelude to a wider war. Our objectives are linked to the events of 11 September. All the evidence that we have seen points clearly to Usama Bin Laden and to the Al Qaida network.
Let me now turn to the military operation. We have three immediate military objectives which contribute to our wider campaign: first, to deny Usama Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network the ability to train overtly in Afghanistan; second, to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida; and third, to set the conditions for a subsequent military operation to maintain this pressure. We're on track to achieve these three objectives.
The first objective: nine Taliban terrorist training camps and associated facilities in Afghanistan have been destroyed, including some where we know that the terrorists involved in the attacks of 11 September were trained. On the second objective, around 40 military facilities have been attacked, including more than 20 command and control facilities. Attacks have continued against barracks and training areas, logistics and maintenance sites, and deployed Taliban forces in the field. And the third objective: the way is now open for wider military operations. Nine Taliban airfields have been attacked, their known (inaudible) force has been destroyed. We have achieved air superiority in Afghan air space.
What we have done is first to dramatically undermine Al Qaida's ability to plan, to train and to carry out the sort of terrorist acts we saw on 11 September. They can no longer show themselves or move freely in the country that they have always counted on for refuge. Second, the Taliban are facing significant pressure to give up Usama Bin Laden. They are neither able to guarantee his safety nor the safety of his senior lieutenants, nor the future of their regime, which has played an active role in aiding and abetting terrorism. We will carry on increasing this pressure for as long as it takes. Third, the way is now open for more complex military operations to destroy the rest of the Al Qaida operations and to remove the leadership that would still allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for mass terrorism.
I recognise that the media will always doubt our ability and our will to prevail, and in a democracy, debate and dissent accompany military conflict; in a dictatorship this is not always so. Please don't forget that right up until Milosevic's capitulation many were saying that NATO's air campaign had failed. Of course there is a risk of innocent civilian casualties, but we're not like Al Qaida; civilians are not our target. Careful targeting and high technology allows us to minimise the risks. But military conflict is and always will be a messy business, and more visibly so today than has ever been the case, thanks to satellite technology and the 24-hour media.
But we need to ask ourselves how we would have reacted if the media had been there to film the 700 casualties in the rehearsal for D-Day. Many of us, in fact, would not be alive today. The truth is that we would have persevered then because it would have been right so to persevere. It is right to persevere now, and we will.
Many have asked why more has not been done since the atrocities of 11 September, but I ask you to look at what has been achieved. The whole world has condemned the mass murders in the United States, including, significantly, the Organisation of Islamic States. We are now seeing a new urgency in the Middle East peace process. Nations are cooperating on intelligence sharing and law enforcement in a way that they have not done before. Dozens of suspected Al Qaida members and associates have been arrested around the world and millions of dollars of terrorist funds have been frozen. The United Nations Security Council has agreed that the United Nations must commit itself to the long-term reconstruction of Afghanistan, and thousands of tons of food aid are getting through to those who desperately need it.
This campaign will last as long as it takes. In the case of the reconstruction of Afghanistan, this will undoubtedly mean many years, but nobody should be in any doubt that we are determined to see it through. The objectives are set, and they will be met in full.
Thank you very much. Do you have any questions?
QUESTION (AP Pakistan): I just wanted to know whether you are considering to halt all your air strikes in Afghanistan during the holy month of Ramadan, because there have been reports indicating that.
Hoon: Well obviously that is something that we are looking at very seriously; it is a matter that we do take fully into account. But equally, I do want to emphasise that we cannot afford to allow Usama Bin Laden or Al Qaida or the Taliban regime to regroup knowing that they will not face military action in the course of Ramadan, so it is something that we're looking at very carefully and we will take fully into account the sensitivities of those in the region and in the wider Arab world.
QUESTION: Secretary of State, are you losing the propaganda weapon, and this war is turning into a war between the west and Islam? British Muslims are fighting along with Taliban against their own country, and we hear about the gruesome murder yesterday of Christians in Pakistan. So what do you think? I mean, are you losing the propaganda and weapon?
Hoon: Well, first of all in a democracy this is not a propaganda war. I recognise that it is important that we get our messages across, but I would invite you to contrast the kind of open discussion and the kind of criticism that democratically elected governments face with the kind of secrecy and hostility that you see, for example, displayed by Usama Bin Laden and his immediate associates. So there is a clear contrast, I'm tempted to say a clear contrast, between right and wrong, certainly not a contrast between the west and Islam. And the support that we have received, that I have seen for myself in my recent visits to the Middle East, demonstrate that this is not a conflict between the west and Islam, it is a conflict between right and wrong, between those who would uphold basic standards and those who would try and bring them down and destroy them.
QUESTION: How do you see GCC countries' co-operation in this campaign against terrorism?
Hoon: Well, we have been enormously pleased with the level and quality of the support that we have received. I've had the opportunity of visiting that region and I have seen for myself the strong support, not only from governments, but also from people. People recognise that Islamic countries have been as much the victims of terrorism as have countries in the west, and they want to play their part in bringing to an end this particular international terrorist organisation.
QUESTION: How do you respond to Brigadier Lane's suggestion that the commanders out in Oman at the moment are not ready for action and that they don't have the intelligence needed to choose the right targets?
Hoon: Well, that was not quite what I heard him say, if you're referring to the interview this morning that was broadcast on the Today programme. What he said was that they had to do further preparation and training before they would be ready to conduct specific military operations in Afghanistan, and that is really not a matter of any great surprise.
They have completed what has been an extraordinarily demanding exercise, they will need some time to prepare for any further operations: that would be the case in any military organisation, and having had the opportunity of seeing the Royal Marines for myself in the course of that recent exercise, I assure you they are ready to go as soon as that necessary preparation has been completed.
QUESTION (George Pascoe Watson, The Sun): Secretary of State, you said, "There's no hidden agenda; this is not a prelude to a wider war" You seem to be ruling out any military action against Iraq.
Hoon: Our aims have been very clearly set out in relation to the follow-on from the appalling events of 11 September. There is no evidence as yet to link Iraq to those appalling events and that is why we are concentrating on dealing with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, because it's that regime that has supported and sustained Usama Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network.
QUESTION (BBC Arabic Service): Some civilian casualties are inevitable, and it seems like some targets have been mistakenly hit more than once, including the Red Cross compound. How far are you willing to sacrifice civilian casualties to prepare the ground for a ground assault, and does that bother you at all that some targets have been hit more than once by mistake?
Hoon: Well, I emphasise to you that the efforts we make here and in the United States to absolutely minimise the number of civilian casualties will go on. We look very at potential targets and if there is a significant risk of collateral . civilian casualties, then I assure you that decisions are then taken to deal with those targets in a very different way - or not at all. And so, minimising the risk to civilians is absolutely central to the way in which we go about the military action, and that will carry on.
As far as the Red Cross facility is concerned, I have looked very carefully into that particular target. These particular warehouses are located inside a military compound where there are military vehicles immediately surrounding the particular buildings in question, so I think there is an interesting question as to why it is that large amounts of Red Cross aid are sitting inside a military compound controlled by the Taliban regime.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) per cent, it seems in this country, if we look at the editorial in the Mirror this morning, for instance, against this war, does this growing voice of dissent, is it going to have any influence at all on the way you conduct the war?
Hoon: Well, I don't accept that there is a growing voice of dissent; that's not the experience I've had when I've talked to people in this country about why we are doing what we're doing. I actually think people out there in the country are far more aware of the impact of the events of 11 September than perhaps some people who write in newspapers are. And frankly, I read what appeared in this morning's Daily Mirror and I do not believe that that reflects at all the opinion of most British people, who want to see determined action against those who are responsible for those appalling incidents on 11 September. And if I had any doubt about that, I would have invited you and others to look at the coverage yesterday of the scenes from Ground Zero in New York, where you saw the physical consequences of what had taken place on 11 September, and I think it is important we don't forget that.
QUESTION (Nick Robinson, BBC News 24): You said it was not a matter of great surprise that there were still some weeks required to prepare British troops. Can I put it to you that (inaudible) very surprised that six weeks after 11 September there's still a period of some weeks for preparation. Can you put a time scale on that and can you explain why British forces will need, what, nine, ten weeks before they're ready to be deployed in the theatre of war? And just one last point, if I may, which is just to ask you: your trip to Washington tomorrow - Britain played a very important role in persuading the Americans to use ground troops in the Kosovo conflict, which you've mentioned; is that your role again?
Hoon: Well, I don't believe that I did actually say 'some weeks', I said 'some time'. And it is necessary to prepare any soldiers that are going into a demanding, difficult and dangerous situation for the specific task that they face. And that is why, having been engaged in an extraordinarily demanding exercise: Saif Sareea II, an exercise that had been planned for years in order to test our Rapid Reaction Force capability, it is not surprising. And indeed, it would be a mistake in a military sense, to simply say these people are going to leave the exercise one day and then immediately are going to go into action on the ground in Afghanistan. That is simply not how things are done, and that is why I think it was wrong of the Today programme this morning to suggest that somehow the commanding officer was indicating that his forces were not ready. They are being prepared for any operations that might be asked of them.
And similarly, part of the reason for my visit to the United States is obviously to ensure that the excellent dialogue that has taken place at all levels of their administration and ours continue. And there are opportunities for us to meet face to face to ensure that that excellent cooperation continues as the campaign continues.
QUESTION (The Guardian): Brigadier Lane did actually talk about the need for good intelligence. Is it possible that there may never be actually sufficient intelligence to do the kind of thing that is envisaged? And a very separate question: could I ask about Iraq - is there any evidence at all of Iraq being involved in the anthrax incidents in America?
Hoon: We've always emphasised that this is an intelligence-led operation. The intelligence leads the determination of which targets to attack. It is intelligence that determines when and if troops will be risked on the ground. It is intelligence that drives forward this particular military campaign, as it must do. We've always said that this is not a typical military operation in the sense of not facing an enemy that is going to line up in a conventional way. Therefore we have to adapt our military thinking and our military decision-making to deal with the kind of enemy that we face, and that is precisely what is happening.
And as far as Iraq is concerned: whilst the FBI investigation into the source of anthrax continues in the United States, I know a great deal of information has been secured; I am not aware yet of any information that links the anthrax to Iraq.
QUESTION: We've read these disturbing reports today; if they are true, about Al Mujajiroun - which I think is not a banned organisation, although it's been sailing pretty close to the wind here - recruiting young Muslims, who are now arriving in Peshawar. It seems that three have been killed in Kabul. I mean the Government keeps trying to reassure the Muslim community this isn't a war against Islam and so on. What can you do to try and discourage this, and do you look to the Muslim community here and some of the leadership, you know, to make some statements on this?
Hoon: Well, we've had a number of statements from leaders of the Muslim community and I'm sure that will continue, because they recognise that this is a campaign against terrorism and against evil criminals. This is not a campaign against Islam. What is important is that we continue to get our messages across in the way that a democratically elected government and a democratic society must. That process will continue and I hope that anyone who is contemplating going to Afghanistan does think very carefully about the consequences both to them and their families in terms of the grief that they might suffer, as well as contemplate as well the legal action that might follow on their return, if they were to return.
QUESTION (Kuwait News Agency): I wonder if you could tell us the impact of the events in the Middle East on the international coalition, and why we don't see any visible European participation, apart from Britain, in the campaign?
Hoon: You're referring specifically to the Middle East peace process?
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
Hoon: As I indicated, I think one of the consequences of the appalling events on 11 September has been to give renewed vigour to the effort to find a lasting peace in the Middle East, and obviously we have played a part in that as have a number of other countries, including, most obviously the United States, but a number of other European countries as well. The international community is united in its determined efforts to secure a stable situation in the Middle East and to ensure as well that proper, real negotiations can get underway once again.
And as someone who spent some time in the Foreign Office dealing with this matter, it is not that long ago since we were talking about a solution to the difficult problems in the Middle East. I don't believe that without goodwill we can't find the same situation again. I think the will is there and I think it's important that the international community continues its determined efforts to bring both sides to the negotiating table for those vital discussions.
I will take one last question.
QUESTION (Al-Hyatt): Minister, two questions, if I may: one, there were reports that Mr Tony Blair would be visiting Israel and the Palestinian Entity next week, and another one: King Abdullah of Jordan warned of a catastrophe if Iraq is hit. Can you give us any assurances this morning that there won't be such an attack?
Hoon: I don't think it would be entirely sensible for me to comment on the precise movements of the Prime Minister. Safe to say that I'm sure he will continue his very determined diplomatic and political efforts that have taken place both from the United Kingdom and around the world to promote the campaign against international terrorism, but also to concentrate on improving the prospects for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.
And as far as Iraq is concerned, I have emphasised in response to two previous questions that there is no evidence linking Iraq to the events of 11 September; there is no evidence either so far that links Iraq to the anthrax attacks in the United States. I think it's important that we emphasise those things.
Thank you all very much indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Available on the UK Ministry of Defence Web site: http://www.mod.uk)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
