MPs Press Conference (Part 2)

Commentary by J. Brock (FINN)

NE: I am grateful of having the opportunity. Indeed, a number of MPs over the years had the opportunity to come and visit here. It's to better inform us and that when the debates do take place and, indeed, I suppose if you go back to 1982, some people are saying we should have known that this could have happened. Well, it did happen. As Alistair says, it’s the self determination of the people of these Islands – how they wish to operate their lives in something – that I think you will find, because we enforce with MPA there, that we will all have an interest in ensuring that you carry on doing just that. So, it is important and it had informed our opinions, that we will be better able to express them, either in debate in the Commons or in various other things that we get associated with, or indeed in the future, as issues come up and they are debated.

AC: I can actually take away from this visit a level of benefit beyond that. I represent two communities, which are very similar in their composition and their social structures, to yours and I, when people say that I must see a lot of similarities, I have to say that it is more difficult to find the differences.

RO: And more of your constituents.

AC: That’s a perfect illustration. I have met four constituents in the last two days. There Are a number of business interests that are represented here – the most obvious being Stanley Services – S. and JD> Robinson, which are a very well known name in my constituency, have a very well known interest. But there are others. There are links that are important in terms of education, agronomy, fisheries, management lessons. I have been able to look at the way that you approach the same problems – perhaps from a different starting point. It’s not to say that we import solutions wholesale but it is looking at all this with fresh eyes and what I would say is that I don’t want to go.

NE: We already know that they try to source locally where they possibly can. It’s cost-efficient for the Armed Forces to do that. And, I understand that one of the contractors from the Abattoir will be the MOD. I understand that that is the case. That’s got to be good news.

RO: I think that if you are trying to feed 1,000 people, at MPA, you’ve got to be sure of continuity of supply. At the moment, it’s there but during the winter months, perhaps it’s not so easy. The Abattoir represents a huge opportunity but the infrastructure has to adapt to the new circumstances. It’s been a wool trade rather than a meat trade and it’s got to make the switch. It’s got to get in live animals to the Abattoir in a continuous production line. It’s feasible but you have got to address the issue.

NE: I was going to say that you have got the cruise ships as well. You’ve got another market supplying in Stanley Growers, which we went to visit as well. We were greatly impressed with what we saw there and you have got another market that’s there. It’s not just Military, it’s not just the people who live here, you have the cruise ships as well and, of course, the fishing vessels, which we saw being loaded up today. You’ve got a lot of opportunities there.

AC: I think they are, in broad terms, supportive, in as much as they think about it at all. You have fallen fairly down the agenda. In terms of foreign affairs things have turned very much towards the Gulf at the moment. It’s a question of balance. I think you might be pleased to be down that particular agenda in most circumstances. My view has always been and this visit reinforces this, is that if self-determination is to be meaningful, then there has to be commitment to the UK to allowing that to be a proper judgement on behalf of the local people. Have I got a gut feeling? Clearly, that’s where I’ve got a continuing commitment to the defence of the Islands and representation on foreign affairs has got to be substantial. I think that’s a view that we three share by most. That’s, I suppose, is of value to the Falkland Islands, of visits like this. It’s an opportunity for MPs to be reminded on a fairly individual and a, dare I say, forceful basis, of what the practical implications are.

RO: May I just say that – credit where credit’s due – Sukey Cameron is one of the more affective overseas representatives in London. And, there are fewer people or any nation in the world who has a higher profile around Westminster and Whitehall than Sukey. And, so, I think, at the moment, you are adequately represented over there. If for any reason the Falklands did slip out of our minds, it wouldn’t be for long. We’d get a quick kick in the pants, I am sure.

NE: There are tremendous bonds of friendship that exist and it’s not just 1982. That exists, of course, as you know. A number of Welsh Guards died during the war. So, there are huge bonds that exist because of 1982. To reiterate what Richard has just said, with Sukey, as well, in London. We are not starved for information about what’s going on here. We will be kept informed. And, we will be keeping ourselves informed when we go back. We have met a number of people, I am sure, we will be keeping in touch with when we go back. We will keep the e-mails going and have a look at the websites and hopefully you will get some broadband here as well.

RO: You know, on the internet, you can listen to the radio now anywhere in the world. It would be great to get your radio on.

NE: Everybody is so well informed here, it’s tremendous. People I had dinner with the other day asked me how House of Lords reform was going. They take a keen and active interest about everything that is going on in the UK.

RO: And I’ve got people following the congestion charge. The introduction was followed more closely here than we did in the UK.

AC: It’s a curiosity value.

NE: I think we will see how it works in Westminster and London and then perhaps introduce it here to the Falklands.

NE: Nobody wants to go to war. That’s for certain. I know that there has been a Military build-up there and, of course, the tri-star that we travelled down on has now been diverted to get more troops out there. I think everyone wants to ensure that Sadam Hussain complies with the UN resolutions. We know through the Kuwait visit recently, there are still several hundreds of people from that invasion that are still missing. They simply don’t get the compliance of the Iraqi regime to even state to these families where these people are. How harrowing is that that these people have to live through that on a daily basis. And, of course, Sadam has even gassed his own people. We know what he has been like in the past. You don’t need to look in a crystal ball. You just look at the past and see what’s happened. We hope that he is going to comply and that he is going to ensure that the weapons that he has had are going to be destroyed and that’s what we want to see happen.

RO: it’s a matter for the United Nations. If the United Nations reach the conclusion that Sadam is a menace then the united nations of the world must then act. But I think the interesting situation that is happening now is that international diplomacy and its interaction is becoming a bigger event than Iraq. How the UN works, how NATO works, how the European Union works is being tested to almost destruction by world affairs at the moment. Personally, I think it is a serious event since the Second World War, or Suez in 1955. And, how it will resolve itself, I don’t know. I think it’s time for cool heads and to hang in there and hope that the United Nations do pass the second resolution. If they don’t pass a second resolution, then I wouldn’t like to predict exactly what will happen and how it will happen and what the international consequences will be.

AC: Nobody doubts that Sadam is an evil tyrant. And, in that respect, he is one of a number who are in the world in different countries and different regions. What you have to be clear about though is that if you have a war involving western developed nations on the one side and Iraq on the other, the implications of that are not going to be limited merely to the nations that are involved. It will have a profound affect and a marked affect on the situation in the Middle East and, in fact, I would say the rest of the developing world. And, for that reason, I think you have got to be clear of what the objective of the war is. And, you have got to make a superb case, which will be supported in our country and in other parts of the world before you do that. And, it is as clear as day that Misers Bush and Blair have not made that case. I’m sorry, I’m not the sort of person who is going to sit and say that if the great and the good think that it is necessary, then I’ll just go along with that. If the case is there, let them make it, let them convince us because they haven’t done it yet.

AC: We hear rumours like this and it all gets built up and it doesn’t necessarily live up to the early promise.

AC: What I am saying is, I want to be convinced of the need first and I certainly am not at the moment.

AC: The point has got to be made that 1982 was about self determination.. In George Bush’s own words, this is about regime change. Now, how can something that involves western nations embarking on a Military exercise for a regime change be consistent with the principle of self-determination? There is no parallel at all. It’s a completely different situation.

NE: My judgement is that if there was a referendum in Iraq, they would vote for regime change.

RO: We can sit here as democratically elected representatives talking to a free press about anything we want and you can’t do that in Iraq, which is why we would like to see a regime change and the biggest cheer will go up in Bagdad when it happens.

NE: It is the intelligence I am receiving, too, from some ambassadors from the Middle East who obviously have a good eye on what’s going on in Iraq because it threatens the whole of the region.

RO: I think the Muslim world would actually like to see Sadam Hussain be replaced. They had a Hard Talk programme on News 24 and the Muslim chap on there was making just that very point.

AC: What they will not want, though, is to see Sadam replaced as a result of American and/or British involvement. The History of the Middle East was one which resisted that sort of interference. That is historically part of the problem It will take a lot of convincing if it is to be part of the solution.

(100X Transcription Service)