British Ambassador To Germany: 'We Share a Common Goal in Iraq'

On Friday, the British government continued its diplomatic efforts to find a compromise on a second U.N. resolution on Iraq ahead of a new report from chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on the progress of disarmament efforts.

Speaking earlier this week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was confident the United Nations would pass a second resolution. But France, Germany and Russia have stressed that they would block the passage of any U.N. resolution authorizing a war against Baghdad.

Though Britain is Washington's staunchest ally in its campaign against Iraq, the issue is just as divisive in London as it is in other European capitals. Last week, a parliamentary vote on an amendment that said the case for war "is as yet unproven" resulted in 120 members of parliament from Blair's own Labour Party voting in favor of the amendment. The vote has been termed the biggest rebellion in the House of Commons in 100 years.

DW-WORLD spoke to Sir Paul Lever, Britain's ambassador to Germany since 1997, on the British position and British-German relations in the wake of the conflict.

Following the recent vote in the House of Commons, and the latest opinion polls, which show 50-60 percent of the British population is against military action in Iraq, why is Blair so determined to make his case?

His conviction comes from his belief that Iraq has to be disarmed and that allowing Iraq to continue with its weapons of mass destruction, and its programs for acquiring more of them, is too dangerous to allow. What the vote in the House of Commons showed was that a substantial minority, but still a minority, of the members of the House of Commons had doubts at that stage whether military action was then warranted. The clear majority of the House of Commons was in support of the government.

The prime minister believes that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and that unless he is disarmed these could prove a danger to the world. Is there something that he knows that we don't? In Germany, for example, people still have difficulties understanding his position.

I would be surprised if there were many people in Germany, at least among those who take a serious interest in the subject, who deny that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. There are reports from United Nations inspectors, both previous ones and the present ones that show there are hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of tons of nerve agent, of anthrax agent, of chemical weapons that are unaccounted for. He has twice used chemical weapons, once against his own people, once against Iran. He has failed to account for what happened to any of these weapons whose existence is well known and documented. I don't think there is much reasonable doubt that he has got these weapons and that he is trying to hang on to them. There is, of course, a difference of view about the best way of securing the disarmament of Iraq that we all want -- but I don't think there is anyone who seriously denies that there is a problem.

Though Tony Blair is pushing for a second resolution, there is still the possibility it could fail and that he would have to sanction military action without the cover of the United Nations. What would this mean for Blair, both nationally and internationally?

That's an interesting hypothetical question, but one which remains hypothetical. Britain is a state which only undertakes or supports military action if it is compatible with the rule of international law. And the British government believes that there will be a second resolution and that this second resolution will confirm the international legitimacy of whatever serious consequences have to flow. I use the term "serious consequences" because this is the wording of the resolution. All our experience with Saddam Hussein suggests that if there is a chance of him complying with the demands of the United Nations Security Council he will only do so at the very last minute and when he really perceives a credible imminent threat of the use of military force. This isn't a comfortable idea for some people to live with, but it is our experience that it is the only realistic way of influencing Saddam Hussein's behavior.

The current Iraq conflict has caused a rift in Europe. Has the issue affected German-British relations?

German-British relations are extremely good and extremely close, particularly the relationship between Gerhard Schröder and Tony Blair. We share a common goal in Iraq, which is to see United Nations resolutions implemented and Iraq disarmed. We have a difference in analysis over the best way of achieving that, but Tony Blair has all along said that he respects and understands the German position and understands in particular the reasons why Germany is reluctant to contemplate the use of force and that the concerns which Chancellor Schröder and Foreign Minister Fischer have put about the consequences in the region are indeed valid and fair points.

And apart from the governmental level?

There is a difference of view about one particular foreign policy issue -- namely, how to handle Iraq. It is a very important issue, and one shouldn't minimize it or pretend that it is trivial. Of course, it's not, but it is one specific foreign policy issue. In general, the relationship between Britain and Germany is extremely close: We are partners in a whole range of business, within the European Union and on the wider international scene. The relationship between the two governments, particularly between the two heads of government, is the closest and best that I have experienced in my professional lifetime, and I started working for the Foreign Office in 1966, so I go back quite a long way. Whatever differences we have on Iraq don't alter that.

Has the issue of Iraq affected your work as an ambassador in Berlin?

It is our job to present Britain in Germany, including the policies of the British government, including policies like Iraq. There is interest in what Britain's position is, why it is, what it is, and the embassy has a role to play in explaining that position, as we explain our government's position on a range of other issues. So, it is an item of business that we have to transact and conduct. It's what a lot of the media understandably are currently interested in, so in that sense, yes, it's work for us, but it's work that we are here to do.

Interview conducted by Louise Brown