Evangelical pitch to create a new world order 2/10/01

KIRSTY WARK:
After the speech, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the Prime Minister's ultimatum to the Taliban - surrender the terrorists or surrender power. Did that mean that if they gave Bin Laden up, the regime would remain?

JACK STRAW MP:
FOREIGN SECRETARY
We're saying there is a way which involves the least use of force by which the Taliban and al-Qaida can seek to bring themselves to justice without us having to resort to force. But it is, as the Prime Minister said, their choice.

WARK:
Can we be clear about this? If Osama Bin Laden is handed over by the Taliban, do you leave the Taliban regime in place? Or is that the target as well?

STRAW:
It is not just about Osama Bin Laden being handed over. It is about the key people in the al-Qaida organisation, the break-up of the whole terrorist apparatus and proper inspection. As to the future of the Taliban regime, if you're asking me, "Is it a specific military aim to remove the Taliban regime?" then no. The specific military aim is to see an end to this terrorist threat and to bring those people to justice.

WARK:
To everybody else he made it clear he had no doubt there was clear evidence against Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban have said today they have seen no sight of this evidence - "Show us the evidence."

STRAW:
That's getting involved in the negotiation. They know very well Osama Bin Laden is up to his neck in this...

WARK:
Do you have evidence that you could show the Taliban?

STRAW:
We are not going to show them. They have been presented with an ultimatum. What we are...

WARK:
If you want to get the coalition on board and deliver them evidence, why don't you get the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden with the evidence as well?

STRAW:
We know that the Taliban know about the culpability of Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaida organisation, and they know we know, so we are not going to play games with them. The question of whether we publish evidence more widely is one which has been under active consideration, and we hope to do so, but in a way that doesn't compromise the sources of this information.

WARK:
George Robertson said today he had been shown compelling evidence by the US ambassador. Have you seen that evidence?

STRAW:
Yes, but it is one thing for me to see it and to see all the intelligence. It is quite another, for reasons people fully understand, to make that widely available.

WARK:
What about this telephone call intercepted by foreign intelligence, supposedly between Osama Bin Laden and his stepmother, two days before the attack, in which he said he was going to go to ground as something would happen? Do you think that is authentic?

STRAW:
It is never my practice or our practice to comment on stories of intelligence or intelligence.

WARK:
Tell me, when you say you have seen this evidence that the US ambassador delivered to George Robertson, and that you need to disseminate this evidence, does every member of the coalition become party to that evidence?

STRAW:
What we have said, what Colin Powell has said, what President Bush has said, is that we are working on documents which - provided we are satisfied it will not lead to a compromise of the sources - we will make public. We recognise that although the British public take it on trust from the Prime Minister - as the American public do from President Bush - that in other countries there is a degree of questioning, the more evidence we can provide the better.

WARK:
When Tony Blair talked today, he talked about this being a kaleidoscope in pieces, and when it settled he wanted to see a new kind of world. It was Blair's moral vision - "community" was the keyword. He covered the whole waterfront of world crises. Sort out the Congo, climate change, Zimbabwe, the Middle East and Northern Ireland. For the United Kingdom - you can't do everything - what's the priority?

STRAW:
You can't do everything all at once, but what we have now with our Prime Minister is a man of international stature who has astonishing vision about how the world order needs to be reformed in order that we can sort out these things. As a matter of fact, a great deal can be done in tandem. We need to sort out what is going on in the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo. It's a huge country in the middle of Africa, profoundly rich potentially, but in which so many people lost their lives and so many people are in poverty. We need to sort that out¿

WARK:
But how? It is easy to make lists - and this was a comprehensive list.

STRAW:
You have to start with a list. You also have to say to people in this country and colleagues in the European Union, in NATO, in G8 and the UN, "We have these conflicts. We can't any longer treat them in as relaxed a way as we have been doing in the past."

WARK:
In your speech this morning, you talked about the support for the US being automatic. Tony Blair gave praise for America as well. But there also seemed a key message for America - for example on climate change, Kyoto is right. Does that send a message to America that they have to come on board, that interdependence, community and not isolationism is the future, and that the Americans have to pay heed to that?

STRAW:
The Americans are paying heed to it. That is one of the things that has happened since 11th September. America, for many of the good reasons that the Prime Minister spelt out in his speech, has often had this idea of being exceptional - and indeed it is. It has led to this concept of exceptionalism - that America in a sense would make its own way in the world even though in practice it has been hugely important in international institutions. I think that is changing, and many of the commentators from America are now saying it has changed and it is going to change further, which is greatly to be welcomed.

WARK:
Do you have an indication that America, post-11th September, would be prepared to sign up to Kyoto?

STRAW:
I don't have that, but there were already signs before 11th September that, although the Americans were not prepared to sign up to Kyoto, they were revising their approach to climate change and were moving. And we may see more movements in the future.

WARK:
Moving on, there's a whole host of issues in this speech. Let's just unpick something here on the euro. It seemed the tone had changed on the euro - that there was a new impetus, this kaleidoscope moving things forward. Tony Blair talked about having the courage to move forward and go for the euro in this Parliament. Why is he saying this now?

STRAW:
There was no change in policy - let's be clear about that. It now seems an awful long time ago, but it is less than four months since the general election. In the general election, our manifesto spelt out clearly our commitment to having a referendum on the euro if the economic tests were met. So that hasn't changed. What, however, you are right to point to is that the Prime Minister was confidently restating that policy, reminding people that, yes, we had to deal immediately with the atrocity on 11th September and its aftermath, but also, not least because we all recognise even more than we did before 11th that we are part of one world, one continent, that we are committed in principle to joining the euro - that decision has already been made and endorsed by the British people - and that if the economic conditions are right we will take the opportunity in this Parliament to put that before the British people.

WARK:
But the words "in this Parliament"?

STRAW:
Yes. That was in the manifesto, but you're right - here is the Prime Minister confidently restating this commitment.

WARK:
Jack Straw, thank you very much.