................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE 17.1.93 ................................................................................ JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Good afternoon and welcome back to On The Record. British jets in action over Iraq. A Task Force sails for the Adriatic. It is easy enough to get into the quicksands of the Gulf or the quagmire in Bosnia: but is there a way out? I'll be asking that of the Secretary of State for Defence, Malcolm Rifkind. A British soldier is killed by a sniper's bullet in Bosnia, the Ark Royal set sail for the Adriatic and a Tory back-bencher speaking for a growing number of his colleagues asks: are we facing D Day or Dunkirk? A troubling question for a Secretary of State for Defence who is also embroiled alongside the Americans in the UN confrontation against Iraq. What next against Saddam Hussein? Secretary of State, we hear that only just now Saddam Hussein is sounding very confrontational, you are being consulted by the Americans about what should be done next. What is the advice of the British government? MALCOLM RIFKIND: Well, it does seem quite clear as you've indicated that the Iraqis are determined to confront the United Nations and the international community. In addition to the various matters reported in your bulletin, I understand there has also been an incursion of the no fly zone, and it's possible that an Iraqi aircraft that breached the no-fly zone may have been shot down earlier this morning - these are reports that we're hearing. There is quite clearly a deliberate attempt by the Iraqis to be as provocative as possible against the wishes of the United Nations. DIMBLEBY: Can I just get that point straight. You're saying that one of the allied aircraft you believe has shot down an Iraqi aeroplane in the no-fly zone. RIFKIND: There are reports that in the Northern fly zone, that is in the fly zone that was introduced to protect the Kurds, that an Iraqi aircraft may have breached that fly zone and was shot down earlier this morning by an American coalition jet. DIMBLEBY: So what is your response to his repeated claim today, that his jets are seeing off allied jets in the no-fly zones? RIFKIND: Well, it's the usual meaningless rhetoric that we've had from Baghdad for a long time now. The reality isthat the international community is determined to ensure the independence of Kuwait and the integrity of the no-fly zones both north and south, of course also to give the support the United Nations requires to carry out the inspections to deal with weapons of mass destruction, including potential nuclear weapons that the Iraqis have been known to be planning. DIMBLEBY: Given that situation, and given the determination and what Saddam Hussein says, is it inevitable that in reality there is no other option in your judgement now than to go in and bomb again? RIFKIND: I think it's quite clear that the Iraqis are determined to ignore the will of the international community. Therefore it does become a distinct possiblity that action of that kind may be necessary. It's not something anyone wants, it's not something anyone likes, but inevitably if the United Nations is to be flouted on every aspect of the current crisis, then some response may prove inevitable. DIMBLEBY: And that action sooner rather than later? RIFKIND: Once a judgement was reached that there was no reasonable and responsible alternative, in order to ensure that Saddam
complies with the United Nations, then obviously military action might be necessary. DIMBLEBY: Secretary of State we are in a bizarre situation now are we not? Saddam Hussein is in a position constantly to provoke which requires the allies instantly to have to decide whether or not to mount bombing raids small or massive in consequence? This is a quicksand military atmosphere isn't it? RIFKIND: No instant decisions are required. I can assure you that any response by the United Nations or by members of the United Nations on its behalf take place after very very careful, very deliberate consideration, a lot of detailed negotiation, constantly looking for alternatives that might be available because force must always be the last option rather than the first. DIMBLEBY: The truth is there's precious little alternative. RIFKIND: It begins increasingly to look like that. DIMBLEBY: Under these circumstances the allies are they not, now in a position as the mice in a game of cat and mouse, which is played by Saddam Hussein? RIFKIND: On the contrary, if you with to use that analogy, then the allies represent the cat not the mouse. DIMBLEBY: But the point is that he can constantly up the anti - keep provoking, driving us into having to decide whether or not there is to be or is not to be an allied response. RIFKIND: Saddam's behaviour can occasionally be very frustrating, and I understand the nature of your question. At the end of the day he is on a game of total failure. All his initiatives have actually ended in failure for Saddam Hussein and as a consequence increased agony for Iraq, but the invasion of Kuwait was thwarted, the no-fly zone both in southern Iraq and in the Kurdish area has been imposed and has given added protection to the peoples of those areas. In addition to that we have all but destroyed Iraq's capability to produce nuclear weapons, so while Saddam may be an irritant, constantly frustrating, seeking to frustrate the will of the international community, as yet he has not succeeded in any one of his objectives. DIMBLEBY: But he is still there, he can still become as you describe it, an irritant. The allies are still forced to bomb,
there is no way forward for the allies and no way back until Saddam Hussein has
gone. RIFKIND: Well clearly we would all be thoroughly relieved and as I'm sure would the people of Iraq if Saddam Hussein was not in control, but one mustn't get bogged down in personalities. The issues themselves are far more important and the crucial point that I would like to get across is that the will of the international community has actually been achieved. Kuwait has had its independence restored, Iraq's nuclear capability has all been but destroyed, the no-fly zones are being implemented. It's because Saddam is trying to reverse these achievements that we're in the current crisis. DIMBLEBY: And we are to that extent bogged down in the crisis, and let me put it to you, moving to the other area where you have direct responsibility, in Bosnia, the same is true there. British troops are now in Bosnia, bogged down for the indefinite future with no clear sense of how or when there is any possibility of getitng out of there. RIFKIND: Well I understand your interest in drawing comparisons. The situations do have certain fundamental differences, certainly so far as the role of the United Kingdom is concerned. The United Kingdom's forces in Bosnia are there for purely humanitarian purposes, bringing food, medical aid and shelter to tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise by dying over these winter months. It's been a great success, the convoys are actually succeeding, we've been responsible, the United Kingdom has been responsible for about a hundred-and-forty-seven convoys getting through over eleven thousand tonnes of aid, and that therefore has been a successful operation, but it is purely humanitarian. DIMBLEBY; Now you have sent the task force if you can call it that, the Ark Royal and its supporting ships and troops. Is that to meet a new threat or a threat that you didn't realise was there when they first went in? RIFKIND: No, the Ark Royal is there as an insurance policy. We are very cognizant of the fact that the situation in some aspects in Bosnia has deteriorated, for example the artillery attack in Tomislavgrad (phon) a week or so ago, the very tragic death of Lance Corporal Edwards a few days ago in Croatian-Muslim fire. That therefore represents deterioration in the situation, it's important that we have our reinforcements in international waters, they may not be needed, but if they are needed I want them to be able to get there to help our British forces to improve their safety and hours, rather than in days or weeks. DIMBLEBY: You say the situation is deteriorating has deteriroated from what you might have envisaged originally. You also said in the House of Commons that the British troops would be withdrawn if the risk to them became, and I quote you, "unacceptably high". What constitutes for you unacceptably high, one more deaths, ten more deaths, a hundred deaths? RIFKIND: There are two aspects to this. First of all they were sent there for a purpose, a humanitarian purpose of getting aid through. That so far is being achieved, it's being achieved with a tremendous spirit and with tremendous success and therefore as long as that aid is required, then clearly one would hope as would all the other countries involved in the United Nations' exercise that the project can continue, but that also has to be measured against the risk to our forces. Now at the moment we've had this operation going on for well over two months now and the number of incidents has been relatively small, one tragic death, but in every other respect it has been a very successful operation. DIMBLEBY: Can you define unacceptable though? RIFKIND: Well, you can't really define it because you know we have quite often stopped the RAF flights to Sarajevo, even without any injuries at all. It's not a question of waiting for injuries to happen, it's coming to considered judgement as to whether the level of risk has so increased, even if there's not been a single casualty, that it would be improper to continue an operation. Now that situation might arise, hasn't arisen yet, we hope it won't but it could. DIMBLEBY: Isn't the danger that there is a risk of the Serbs hearing that, will say "All we have to do now is train our fire on the British, force them to evacuate and be free then to carry on our war against the Muslims in Bosnia with impunity because the UN operation would collapse. RIFKIND: We are talking about the humanitarian effort and the United Nations has made it very cler from day one that that United Nations operation, British, French, Spanish, Canadian and a number of other countries can only take place on the basis of it not requiring the use of force to get food and medical aid through. We're not there to fight our way through, we're not there to take part in what has many of the characteristics of a civil war, that's not just a new situation, that was made clear from day one by the United Nations, speaking on behalf of all the countries concerned, including the United Kingdom. DIMBLEBY: Let me ask you this. If the UN decides to enforce through a resolution which is under discussion now, the no-fly zones in Bosnia, will British forces be available to sustain that enforcement? RIFKIND: Well clearly, at this stage what we are seeing is the terms of a no-fly zone resolution, the no-fly zone in Bosnia to a large extent has been effective. There have been, unlike in Iraq, there have been no combat aircraft flying at all. Now what we have seen in the last few weeks is a number of helicopters and other non-combat aircraft being used by
both Serbs and Croats and it's in order to deal with that situation that the United Nations is currently considering an enforcement resolution for the no-fly zone. We will have to consider along with other countries how that can best be enforced in due course. DIMBLEBY: What's your response to the charge by Secretary of State Eagleberger that Britain has been foot dragging in finalising this resolution? RIFKIND: That's absolute nonsense. We are very much involved in Bosnia, more I may say at the present time than the United states. We have some two-and-a-half thousand soldiers on the ground, the Americans don't have anyone at all in Bosnia, so that's obviously a consideration and our American friends are very sensitive to that consideration and both Mr Eagleberger and President Bush have paid tribute to what the British forces and others on the ground are doing with humantiarian objectives. DIMBLEBY: Now if hoping against hope, peace breaks out on the basis of the Geneva agreement and there is a ceasefire, would Britain be willing if asked to provide forces to help enforce that ceasefire in the next weeks? RIFKIND: The first question one would have to ask is, is it a real ceasefire. We've so often had documents signed, which sounds impressive and is very much to be welcomed and then nothing actually happens of an acceptable kind. DIMBLEBY: And if it is? RIFKIND: When you get a real ceasefire happening, then as in other parts of the world, if people have actually stopped fighting and it's simply a question of hauling the ring, then there is a role for the international community, not just for the United Kingdom. Remember there are over a hundred-and-fifty members of the United Nations. The United Kingdom should not always be seen as being the major player in matters of this kind. We are able to make a contribution, we are responsible country, we're a permanent member of the Security Council and we have an obligation to help in another European country, but clearly so do many other countries and that is something to be borne in mind. DIMBLEBY: In a world Mr Rifkind, isn't Britain in the same position in this sense, in Bosnia as in Iraq, that the troops are in there, they have an objective at the moment, you can't see what's going to happen in the future and you have no idea when they're going to get out? RIFKIND: With respect no. Obviously there are certain superficial similarities but the situation is quite different. DIMBLEBY: But you can't tell me when or if they're going to come out of Bosnia can you? RIFKIND: I can most cetainly tell you that the ground forces of the Cheshires and their colleagues in Bosnia will come out
either when the job has been fulfilled and there is no longer a need for humanitarian aid, or alternatively if the level of risk becomes unacceptably high. We're quite prepared to do that, we'd do that tomorrow if it became necessary. What I can say absolutely unequivocally is that we have no intention whatsoever of letting our ground forces in Bosnia be used for combat purposes in the fighting that is taking place in that unhappy part of the world. That will be no part of the role of British forces in Bosnia neither now or in the future. DIMBLEBY: Secretary of State, thank you very much. ......oooOooo.......