A Selection of Tony Blair Speeches before 2004 plus some statements and interviews
Full text of the Prime Minister's speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet on 11 November 2002
[Check against delivery]
Last Friday was an important day for the world. After months of debate, the United Nations came together and made its will plain. Saddam now has to decide: There is no dispute with the Iraqi people. Iraq's territorial integrity will be absolute. The dispute is with Saddam. It is now up to him as to how it is resolved: by peace or by conflict.
WMD is but one aspect of the new dangers we face. The Cold War has ended. The great ideological battle between Communism and Western liberal democracy is over. Most countries believe both in markets and in a necessary role for Government. There will be thunderous debates inside nations about the balance, but the struggle for world hegemony by political ideology is gone.
What preoccupies decision-makers now is a different danger. It is extremism driven by fanaticism, personified either in terrorist groups or rogue states.
As we have seen from recent atrocities, whether the attacks of September 11 last year, Bali, the attack on the French ship off Yemen, the Russian theatre siege, today's breed of terrorist knows no bounds - of geography, of inhumanity, or of scale. They are looking for ever more dramatic and devastating outrages to inflict upon the people they claim to be their enemy. There is this added dimension: it is not just that they care nothing for the lives of others, they care nothing for the loss of their own life.
At the moment, barely a day goes by without some new piece of intelligence coming via our security services about a threat to UK interests. Some of it will be based on sources in Britain and abroad. Some of it will be reliable; some of it may be misinformation being fed in to waste our time chasing shadows. Some of it will be gossip. Other material will be based on technical intelligence gathering. This kind of material is crossing the desks of the intelligence agencies, my desk, the Home Secretary's desk, all the time, and other nations are in exactly the same situation.
Tonight I want to take you through the dilemma that confronts us in meeting this threat and explain to you our strategy for it. The purpose of terrorism is of course not just to kill and maim. As the name suggests, terrorism is about terror. It is to scare people, disrupt their normal lives, produce chaos and disorder, distort proper and sensible decision-making. The dilemma is reconciling warning people with alarming them; taking preventive measures without destroying normal life.
Our strategy is as follows. Where there is specific intelligence about a particular attack, we act to thwart it directly. Where we know cells of Al-Qaida are operating, here or abroad, our services are monitoring them, disrupting them, where possible, dealing with those involved; if they are here, prosecuting, detaining or expelling them. Where there is intelligence suggesting potential targets, we increase surveillance or security as far as we can without causing unnecessary hardship or alarm to the public.
But there is a balance to be struck. After the attack in Bali there were suggestions that somehow because the US had issued a general warning to Americans not to gather in large groups, this meant we knew something, that we were holding back on telling the public.
But if, on the basis of a general warning, we were to shut down all the places that Al-Qaeda might be considering for attack, we would be doing their job for them. If we acted on every piece of raw intelligence in a way that some were suggesting after Bali, we would have in my time as Prime Minister on many occasions shut down roads, railways, airports, stations, shopping centres, factories, military installations. If a terrorist thought that all he had to do to shut down the travel industry for example was to issue a threat against our airports, we really would be conceding defeat in the war against terrorism.
So we make a judgement, day by day, week by week. So the international community has to work together to ensure the safest possible transport systems and tough laws, and proper inter-agency co-operation. Government has to ensure we take whatever security measures we can, consistent with the desire of people to live normal lives. Businesses have to ensure that the security measures we advised in the wake of September 11 continue to be implemented. Whether here in the UK or when travelling abroad, all of us as citizens have to be alert, vigilant, and to cooperate fully with the relevant authorities.
This is a new type of war, fought in a different way by different means. But as with all wars, it will test not just our ability to fight, but our character, our resilience and our belief in our own way of life. It is a war I have total confidence we will win, but it will not be without pain or come without a price.
Terrorism and WMD are linked dangers. States which are failed, which repress their people brutally, in which notions of democracy and the rule of law are alien, share the same absence of rational boundaries to their actions as the terrorist. Iraq has used WMD. North Korea's admission that it has a programme to produce Highly Enriched Uranium was an important confession. We know North Korea has traded ballistic missile technology. We know there are other highly unstable states who want to get their hands on Highly Enriched Uranium. With it, a nuclear weapon could be a step away. Just reflect on it and the danger is clear.
And terrorism and WMD have the potential, at least, to be directly linked. Would Al-Qaida buy WMD if it could? Certainly. Do they have the financial resources? Probably. Would they use them? Definitely.
So these are new and different dangers. It's not like the old Soviet bloc versus NATO. There, defensive alliances were formed; crises occurred, often serious; but in a funny way, the world knew where it was. The year 2002 is different. These dangers can strike at any time, across any national boundary and in pursuit of a cause with which there can be little or no rational negotiation.
One part of our response is security, intelligence, policing and where necessary military action. But above all, the international community needs to be unified in its political response.
This is the other danger: not just terrorism or WMD, but polarised opinion in how we deal with them: Europe dividing off from the US; the Arab world versus the West; Moslem versus Christian.
I remember a few weeks ago, doing a Q&A session with young people. In the audience were some young British Moslems. They were obviously bright, born in Britain, with a good future here, intelligent and articulate. And convinced: one, that the US was the real threat to world peace; and two, that the reason Iraq was in our sights, was that it was a Moslem country. In vain did I point out that Saddam had killed many more Moslems than any Western Government; or that when we took on Milosevic, we were fighting an Orthodox Christian oppressing Moslems.
The point I'm making is that these new threats confronting the world aren't conventional: and they can't be fought by conventional means alone. We will not defeat terrorism only by security measures.
We must accept that there is a significant part of the world that is, at present, deeply inimical to all we stand for and is so from a mixture of tradition, ignorance of our true motives and values and from a belief that we are governed by a one-sided view of what is just.
I believe this view to be profoundly mistaken but I believe it to be real. And it menaces the very unity we need in confronting the dangers before us. What can we do?
First, we need to reach out to the Arab and Moslem world. Where countries are undergoing a process of transition, we need to help. Where there are problems between us, we need to engage vigorously. Above all, we need to understand the passion and anger the state of the Middle East Peace Process arouses. I don't want to repeat what I have said so often before. But I would make just this one point. I understand entirely the reasons why Israel has taken action to combat the terrorism it suffers from. Any country faced with its citizens being blown up in cafes, discos, restaurants, buses, innocent people savagely murdered going about their daily business - I say, any country in these circumstances, will act and has a duty to do so.
But without moving towards a just and final settlement based on President Bush's speech of June, the Palestinians, the majority of whom are also innocent victims of this tragedy, are consigned to the most abject state of poverty and despair.
The answer is not to apportion blame. The answer is to move the process forward: on security, on political reform, on the only viable solution the whole world now supports - an Israeli state, recognised by all and a viable Palestinian state. And to do it quickly. Until this happens, this issue hangs like a dark shadow over our world, chilling our relations with each other, poisoning the understanding of our motives, providing the cover under which the fanatics build strength.
Second, we need to be prepared to help failed or failing nations recover. Afghanistan is the clearest example of regime change effected by the international community. It has to work. Investment in Afghanistan today - in money, time, troops and energy, will be repaid many times over. It will be visible proof that we are responsible actors, that compassion is as important to us as the use of force, where necessary. The most remarkable example of helping nations that have failed, is on our own continent of Europe. In 2004 the EU will become 25 nations. I hope no later than 2007 Romania and Bulgaria will join. Balkan nations, plagued by war, division and collapse are seeing, even if only in the distant future, the possibility of coming fully into Europe and it is giving them hope. Every dollar spent now in assisting them, is also assisting us to create a more stable and prosperous Europe.
Third, we need to create bridges of understanding between religious faiths also. Part of the fanaticism is religious. Part of the solution lies in religion too. George Carey's work in the inter-faith field was pioneering especially in the Alexandria Process, which I commend. Within Islam, moderate voices are now speaking up, the world over. They need encouragement. Young people need to be brought up with a clear understanding of other faiths, respect them and cultivate knowledge both of differences and the vast areas of common values and traditions of which so many are ignorant.
Finally, what brings all these things together is a sense of justice, of fairness in our dealings with each other. There can be coalitions of force. But these are always stronger when buttressed by a coalition of common ideas, of a shared agenda. To put it plainly, I believe that we are absolutely right to tackle terrorism and WMD and would be irresponsible to ignore the threat they pose. But I also believe the world needs a broader agenda than simply terrorism and WMD. And we need full US engagement and leadership on all of it. President Bush recognises that. Witness the decision to go through the UN on Iraq; the new relationship between NATO and Russia; last June's agreement on a plan for Africa agreed at the G8. But the world needs to see that for example the famine in Ethiopia, the looming crisis in Southern Africa can demand and receive our attention and energy too.
The point is simply this: if a unified international community is the surest way to defeat these new dangers, we need to construct the broad agenda around which unity can coalesce.
The UN Resolution on Iraq was a vital step in this direction: a willingness to act matched by a willingness to act together.
So: these are new times. New threats need new measures. The simplest act of fanaticism carried out in a state thousands of miles from us is of significance on the streets of London or in the villages of County Durham. The interdependence of the modern world has never been clearer; the need for a common response never greater; the values of freedom, justice and tolerance of our diversity never more relevant; and the need to apply them fairly across the world never more urgent.
Tuesday 1 October 2002: Speech by Tony Blair, Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party, Labour Party conference, Winter Gardens, Blackpool
--- CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY ---
The paradox of the modern world is this:
We've never been more interdependent in our needs; and
We've never been more individualist in our outlook.
Globalisation and technology open up vast new opportunities but also cause massive insecurity.
The values of progressive politics - solidarity, justice for all - have never been more relevant; and their application never more in need of modernisation.
Internationally, we need a new global partnership, that moves beyond a narrow view of national interest.
At home, it means taking the great progressive 1945 settlement and reforming it around the needs of the individual as consumer and citizen for the 21st century.
What we did for the Labour party in the new clause IV, freeing us from outdated doctrine and practice, we must now do, through reform, for Britain's public services and welfare state.
We are at a crossroads: Party, Government, country.
Do we take modest though important steps of improvement?
Or do we make the great push forward for transformation?
I believe we're at our best when at our boldest.
So far, we've made a good start but we've not been bold enough.
Interdependence is obliterating the distinction between foreign and domestic policy.
It was the British economy that felt the aftermath of 11 September.
Our cities who take in refugees from the 13 million now streaming across the world from famine, disease or conflict.
Our young people who die from heroin imported from Afghanistan.
It is our climate that is changing.
Today, a nation's chances are measured not just by its own efforts but by its place in the world.
Influence is power is prosperity.
We are an island nation, small in space, 60 million in people but immense in history and potential.
We can take refuge in the mists of Empire but it is a delusion that national identity is best preserved in isolation, that we should venture out in the world only at a time of emergency.
There is a bold side to the British character.
And there is a cautious side.
Both have their time and season.
Caution is often born of common sense, a great British trait.
But there are times when caution is retreat and retreat is dangerous.
Now, at the start of the 21st Century, is a time for reaching out.
The cold war is over.
The US is the only superpower.
The Americans stand strong and proud, but at times resented.
Europe is economically powerful but not yet politically coherent.
Russia is breaking free from its past but still carrying the burden.
For China and India, power is only a matter of time.
For the moment, Japan is changing, South America struggling, Asia emerging; Africa impoverished; the Middle East unstable.
The world can go in two ways.
Countries can become rivals in power, or partners.
Partnership is the antidote to unilateralism.
For all the resentment of America, remember one thing.
The basic values of America are our values too, British and European and they are good values. Democracy, freedom, tolerance, justice.
It's easy to be anti-American.
There's a lot of it about but remember when and where this alliance was forged: here in Europe, in World War II when Britain and America and every decent citizen in Europe joined forces to liberate Europe from the Nazi evil.
My vision of Britain is not as the 51st state of anywhere, but I believe in this alliance and I will fight long and hard to maintain it.
I'm not saying we always apply our values correctly.
But I've lost count of the number of supposedly intelligent people who've said to me.
You don't understand the Serbs. They're very attached to Milosevic. No they weren't.
The Afghans are different. They like religious extremism. No they didn't.
The Iraqis don't have the same tradition of political freedom. No they don't but I bet they'd like to.
Our values aren't western values.
They're human values, and anywhere, anytime people are given the chance, they embrace them.
Around these values, we build our global partnership.
Europe and America together.
Russia treated as a friend and equal.
China and India seeking not rivalry but cooperation and for all nations the basis of our partnership not power alone but a common will based on common values.
Applied in an even-handed way.
Some say the issue is Iraq. Some say it is the Middle East Peace Process. It's both.
Some say it's poverty. Some say it's terrorism. It's both.
I know the worry over Iraq. People accept Saddam is bad.
But they fear it's being done for the wrong motives.
They fear us acting alone.
So the United Nations route.
Let us lay down the ultimatum.
Let Saddam comply with the will of the UN.
So far most of you are with me.
But here is the hard part.
If he doesn't comply, then consider.
If at this moment having found the collective will to recognise the danger, we lose our collective will to deal with it, then we will destroy not the authority of America or Britain but of the United Nations itself.
Sometimes and in particular dealing with a dictator, the only chance of peace is a readiness for war.
But we need coalitions not just to deal with evil by force if necessary, but coalitions for peace, coalitions to tackle poverty, ignorance and disease.
A coalition to fight terrorism and a coalition to give Africa hope.
A coalition to re-build the nation of Afghanistan as strong as the coalition to defeat the Taliban.
A coalition to fight the scourge of AIDS, to protect the planet from climate change every bit as powerful as the coalition for free trade, free markets and free enterprise.
And yes what is happening in the Middle East now is ugly and wrong.
The Palestinians living in increasingly abject conditions, humiliated and hopeless; Israeli civilians brutally murdered.
I agree UN resolutions should apply here as much as to Iraq.
But they don't just apply to Israel. They apply to all parties.
And there is only one answer.
By this year's end, we must have revived final status negotiations and they must have explicitly as their aims: an Israeli state free from terror, recognised by the Arab world and a viable Palestinian state based on the boundaries of 1967.
For Britain to help shape this new world, Britain needs to be part of it.
Our friendship with America is a strength.
So is our membership of Europe.
We should make the most of both.
And in Europe, never more so than now.
The single currency is a fact, but will Europe find the courage for economic reform?
Europe is to become 25 nations, one Europe for the first time since Charlemagne, but will it be as a union of nation states or as a centralised superstate?
It has taken the first steps to a common defence policy, but will it be a friend or a rival to NATO?
The answers to these questions are crucial to Britain.
They matter to the British economy, our country, our way of life.
And the way to get the right answers, is by being in there, vigorous, confident, leading in Europe not limping along several paces behind.
That's why the Euro is not just about our economy but our destiny.
We should only join the Euro if the economic tests are met.
That is clear.
But if the tests are passed, we go for it.
Interdependence is the core reality of the modern world.
It is revolutionising our idea of national interest.
It is forcing us to locate that interest in the wider international community.
It is making solidarity - a great social democratic ideal - our route to practical survival.
Partnership is statesmanship for the 21st Century.
We need now the same clarity of vision for our country.
I have learnt this in 5 years of government. <
The radical decision is usually the right one.
The right decision is usually the hardest one.
And the hardest decisions are often the least popular at the time.
The starting point is not policy. It's hope.
I sometimes think the whole of politics can be reduced to a battle between pessimism and hope.
Because from hope comes change.
At times, in Britain we lack self- belief.
Britain is a great country. On the way up.
Fourth largest economy in the world.
The best mortgage, inflation and unemployment figures for a generation.
Long-term youth unemployment now down to 5,400 for the whole of Britain.
Compare that with three million unemployed under the Tories and then understand the difference a Labour Government can make.
As a result, the welfare bills of failure are falling; so we can spend
£6 billion a year more today on pensioners than in 1997 and that's also the difference a Labour Government makes.
In arts and culture, we lead the world in awards, prizes and talent.
Our armed forces are the best anywhere.
Our school system has now been judged, by the most authoritative international analysis, among the top eight in the world, above France and Germany.
More students than ever before go to university. Our universities are widely regarded as the best in Europe.
I understand the anxiety of students affected by the marking down of their A levels.
We are totally committed to helping them.
But perhaps mistakes like this can be avoided if in future, when our students do well, we praise the students, thank the teachers instead of thinking we must have failed, when actually we've done better.
For all the attacks on the NHS, listen to this story of a woman who has breast cancer.
Screened because she was one of the 140,000 extra now checked a year.
Who saw a consultant within 2 weeks.
Saw him because now every urgent patient suspected of cancer has to be seen within 2 weeks.
Treated within four weeks because that is now the maximum time for breast cancer treatment.
Five years ago, even two years ago, none of that would have been guaranteed.
That's what we meant when in 1997 we said Britain was going to get better.
That's what the Tories hate.
They sneer at the investment.
Pessimism about Britain is now the official strategy of the Tories.
The purpose is not just to undermine the Government, but to undermine Government, to destroy the belief that we can collectively achieve anything, to drench progress in cynicism, to sully the hope from which energy, action and change all spring.
Now they've gone "compassionate".
Know what it means?
We are going to run down your schools but we feel really bad about it.
We're going to charge you to see a GP but we really wish we weren't.
We're going to put more children in poverty but this time we'll honestly feel very guilty about it.
In Opposition, Labour was trying to escape policies we didn't believe in. It was a journey of conviction.
Today's Tories are trying to escape policies they do believe in.
Theirs is a journey of convenience and it fools no-one least of all themselves.
There's no cause for pessimism, we should believe in ourselves and use that self-belief to choose now and irrevocably the path of reform.
The 20th Century was a century of savage slaughter, insane ideology, and unparalleled progress.
Progress won in the end.
Governments used collective power through the state, to provide opportunity for the masses.
But in time the institutions of that power became huge interests in their own right.
And the people became more prosperous, more assertive, more individualist.
Eventually, the 1980s saw a reaction by the individual against collective power in all its forms.
Now with globalisation, a new era has begun. People are no less individualist, but they are insecure.
Modern prosperity may be greater but modern life is pressure and stress.
20th Century collective power was exercised through the Big State.
Their welfare was paternalistic, handing down from on high.
That won't do today.
Just as mass production has departed from industry, so the monolithic provision of services has to depart from the public sector.
People want an individual service for them.
They want Government under them not over them.
They want Government to empower them, not control them.
And they want equality of both opportunity and responsibility.
They want to know the same rules that apply to them, apply to all.
Out goes the Big State. In comes the Enabling State.
Out goes a culture of benefits and entitlements. In comes a partnership of rights and responsibilities.
That's why we need reform.
Reform is just a word.
It has no meaning in itself. It's the purpose of it that matters.
I will tell you why I am passionate about reform.
Because poor public services and welfare are usually for the poorest.
The better-off can buy a better education or move to a better area or know a better doctor; or find a better job.
Those great Governments of 1906 and 1945 did great things.
They inherited a situation where the majority were have-nots and made them haves.
But prosperity never reached all the way down.
We went from being a 30-70 country to being a 70-30 one.
Today it's not enough. Not morally.
Not economically where we need every last drop of potential to be fulfilled, if Britain is to succeed.
Let me spell it out.
In education, we need to move to the post-comprehensive era, where schools keep the comprehensive principle of equality of opportunity but where we open up the system to new and different ways of education, built round the needs of the individual child.
We need an NHS true to the principle of care on the basis of need, not ability to pay, but personalised, built around the individual patient.
Both require an end to the "one size fits all" mass production public service.
The purpose of the 20th century welfare state was to treat citizens as equals.
The purpose of our 21st century reforms must be to treat them as individuals as well.
And we can't make that change by more bureaucracy from the centre, by just flogging the system harder.
We need to change the system.
It means putting power in the hands of the patient or parent, which is what Alan and Estelle are doing.
Why shouldn't an NHS patient be able to book an appointment for an operation at their convenience, just like they could if they paid for it? "At the time I want, with the doctor I want" was Margaret Thatcher's reason for going private.
Why shouldn't it be the right for every citizen and why shouldn't it be done within the NHS?
Why shouldn't our best hospitals be free to develop their services within the NHS as foundation hospitals?
Why shouldn't there be a range of schools for parents to choose from: from specialist schools to the new City Academies, to faith schools, to sixth forms and sixth form colleges offering excellent routes into university and skilled employment?
Why shouldn't good schools expand or take over failing schools or form federations?
It means power in the hands of the professionals.
Why shouldn't nurses prescribe medicines or order x-rays?
Why shouldn't classroom assistants and IT specialists be every bit as important as teachers in the future?
Why should a consultant who does 30 NHS operations a week not be paid more than one who does 10?
Why should a teacher who wants to stay in the classroom and is superb at it not be paid the same as a Head of Department?
Every time, the reform is tough, just keep one thing in mind: the child in a school where barely any pupils take "A" levels, where only 20 per cent get good GCSEs and where the majority know they will just end up as one of the 7 million British adults who can't even read or write properly.
The only difference between that child and mine is one had a chance in life and the other had none.
If the status quo was good enough, that child would be a figment of our imagination.
The fact that such children do exist - thousands of them every year in Britain - is why reform is the road to social justice, not its denial.
Do you know what really holds back change?
The pessimism that says: go on, you can't really have top quality services for all.
It's like the Tories who argue you dumb down if 50% of young people go to university though of course three quarters of middle class children already do.
As if God distributed ability by class background.
I visited the Beswick estate in East Manchester on Saturday with John Prescott. Three years ago going down.
Now on the way up. Massive investment.
The primary school results dramatically improved.
Were the boys and girls in 2002 brighter than their brothers and sisters in 1999? Rubbish.
All that's changed is that for the first time in their lives, people are giving them a bit of hope, a bit of belief, a bit of confidence that they're every much as entitled to a start in life as the middle class child five miles up the road.
We reject old Tory pessimism.
But we on the left have our own pessimism.
It's that if we change a cherished institution, we betray it. If we deliver a service in a different way, we trash its founding principles.
I agree competition should not be on the basis of cutting wages or employment protection. Demoralised staff don't perform at their best.
We should value our public servants.
I don't just mean the doctors, nurses, teachers and police.
I mean the porters, cleaners, secretaries, administrators, the dinner ladies, the care assistants who day in and day out give time and effort and commitment way beyond their contractual duty.
I say to the trade unions: work with us on the best way of delivering the service and we will work with you on ending the two-tier workforce.
But let me make one thing plain.
We are the only Government anywhere in the Western world that this year, next year, the year after, is increasing both health and education public spending as a percentage of national income. The only one.
That is our commitment to public services.
We said schools and hospitals first.
We're building them. Lots of them.
And I am not going to go to parents and children and patients in my constituency or any other and say I'm sorry because there is an argument going on about PFI we're going to put these projects on hold.
They don't care who builds them.
So long as they're built.
I don't care who builds them.
So long as they're on cost, on budget, and helping to deliver a better NHS and better State schools for the people of Sedgefield and every other constituency in the land.
Between 1979 and 1997, ten new hospitals were built.
Through PFI since 1997, 15 new hospitals built and 100 on the way.
550 schools are being re-built or modernised.
In Glasgow, the whole of the secondary school system is being re-built with 12 brand new schools.
All under PFI.
And every single part of the service remains universal and free at the point of use.
Come on: this isn't the betrayal of public services. It's their renewal.
All that is happening is that here, as round the rest of the world, we are dividing means and ends. The ends, universal provision remain the same.
The means of delivery, partnership between public, private and voluntary sectors and between state and citizen, change.
Pensions is probably the biggest current worry for the workforce.
And transport probably the worst area of public services.
Over the coming months, we will present long-term proposals for both.
But there is no way Government through the general taxpayer can do it all.
People still have 1945 expectations of Government.
They want it to do things for them.
In fact today, Government can only do things with them.
It's the same for the economic role for Government.
We can empower but we can't run people's lives or their business.
In fact the greatest hope for social democracy is the coming together of the social and the economic case for developing human potential.
Investment in people, helping them to learn new skills and technology, to start a business or help their business to grow.
But it has to be a partnership.
And that applies to all walks of life. I know the plight of the farming community.
It is serious.
I have spent 5 years working on it.
We are putting more money into it than the rest of British industry combined.
We'll carry on doing it.
But it's time this money is used to reform farming so that it has a future, rather than to prop up the failed practices of the past.
And I want to stress our commitment to British science.
We face a choice.
We can use our huge strengths in this area to become world leaders. Or we can be deterred by the Luddite tirades.
I have made that choice for Britain. £2bn extra over three years.
And I was proud to have made that choice when I sat waiting to be interviewed by David Frost on Sunday, watching an interview with the American actor Christopher Reeve who said he wanted to thank Britain and the British people for taking a lead on research which could help him and others like him all over the world.
But the other side of Government helping the citizen is the citizen's responsibility to others.
Partnership is also citizenship for the 21st Century.
I don't have the toughest job in Government. David Blunkett does.
On asylum, where big reform is needed urgently. And on crime.
I still hear from time to time this nonsense that crime is not a real Labour issue, and all we have to do is deliver on poverty and opportunity.
Of course we have to do that.
But try telling a 92 year old pensioner, a Labour supporter for the last 70 years, that she'll have to wait for the Tories to get tough on the young thugs who battered her.
That's not a conversation I'm prepared to have.
We're the first Government since the war under which crime has fallen not risen.
Does that reassure everyone?
No.
There is less of a chance today of being a victim of crime than at any time for 20 years.
Does everyone believe it? No.
We have increased the numbers of police to record numbers, toughened the law on everything from rape to benefit fraud.
Does that mean everyone feels safer? No.
Why? Because the problem is not just crime.
It is disrespect.
It is anti-social behaviour.
It is the drug dealer at the end of the street and no-one seems to be able to do anything about it.
This is not only about crime. It is about hard-working families who play the rules seeing those who don't, getting away with it.
The street crime initiative has been one of the most successful exercises in partnership between Government and police in living memory.
Not my words, but those of the Chief Constables.
But what was fascinating was not the initiative itself, but what it uncovered.
Outdated identity parades taking weeks if not months to organise. Defendants who didn't answer to their bail and never got punished for it.
Police officers told it was a breach of civil liberties to check whether defendants were obeying bail conditions.
It's not civil liberties.
It's lunacy.
Drug addicts with previous offences routinely bailed though everyone knew what they would be doing between bail and trial.
Magistrates unable to remand persistent young offenders in custody because no places existed in prison or secure accommodation.
The whole system full of excellent people, worn down and worn out.
Step by step David and his team, working with the police are putting it right.
Later this year we will introduce the Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform Bill.
It will re-balance the system emphatically and in favour of the victims of crime.
Old rules will be swept away; court procedures simplified; sentencing built round the offender as well as the offence, with those on drugs getting treatment or custody.
More police on the beat. More Community Support Officers.
Instant fines for anti-social behaviour.
Parents of truants who refuse to cooperate with the school will be fined or lose benefit.
Anti-social tenants and their anti-social landlords who make money out of abusing Housing Benefit, while making life hell for the community, should lose their right to it.
Those who assault teachers or nurses should go to jail.
And from early next year, wealthy drug dealers or organised criminals with money in their bank account or a home or an asset of any sort but no lawful means of support will have it taken from them unless they show it was come by lawfully not through crime.
For 100 years, our Criminal Justice System like our welfare system was based on a messy compromise between liberals and authoritarians.
The liberals tended to view crime as primarily about social causes and the welfare system primarily about giving to the poor.
The authoritarians wanted harsh penalties and as ungenerous a benefit system as possible.
The compromise was a Criminal Justice System weighted in favour of the defendant but with harsh penalties for the convicted; and a passive welfare system with mean benefits.
In short, the worst of all worlds.
In its place, a new contract between citizen and community.
We give opportunity to all.
We demand responsibility from all.
We are investing heavily in the biggest anti-poverty strategy of any Government for half a century.
On top of record investment in education, we've introduced the New Deal, the Working Families Tax Credit, record increases in Child Benefit and Income Support, Sure Start.
To the majority who are reasonably well off, these are just words.
To people who need them, they can be transforming.
I saw it last week in Hackney, where a woman said till Sure Start came along she felt trapped in her council flat, looking after her child.
Now the child had a creche to go to; the mother had a network of friends and contacts; she got a job.
She was happy.
I've seen it at Ferryhill in my own Sedgefield constituency.
It is a great feeling.
You're the local MP.
But you're also the Prime Minister.
And the government you lead has created centres like those all over the country.
And you can see the impact for the better on the lives of people who elected you.
And what was brilliant about Sure Start at Ferryhill wasn't just the fantastic new facilities, the creche and nursery, the help and advice for families.
It was the buzz of mums and dads, staff and helpers taking control, not just of their own lives but of the community, making those lives and that community better.
That is what we mean by the redistribution of power, wealth and opportunity to the many not the few.
The modern Welfare State must be active, not passive, put partnership in place of paternalism.
That's what a modern civic society, with reformed public services and welfare can do.
But it also means changes to politics itself.
The same issues that confront our public services - collapse of deference, rise of individualism, a desire for involvement apply in equal measure to the conduct of politics.
I don't have all the answers.
I don't have all the levers. The other parties.
Local politicians.
The media.
Pressure groups. Anyone with a vested interest in a healthy democracy has a role to play here.
For us, I accept a big majority means a big responsibility to make Parliament more relevant and do more in Parliament.
And our very political strength means that when voters get disengaged the challenge is for us to find out why and do something about it.
Next time, we want to win but we want to do it on a turn out of more than 59%.
Our relations too, Party leadership and members, has to change.
You've lost your love of discipline for its own sake.
I've lost my love of popularity for its own sake.
Soon, we will present proposals to you for the renewal of our membership base, policy discussion and our links with other parties around the world.
The alternative is a return to self destruction, the perennial disease of centre-left Governments. Never let us fall for the far left's eternal delusion: that if there is dissatisfaction with a moderate centre-left Government this can be manipulated into support for a far-left Government.
It results only in one thing. Always has. Always will: the return of a right-wing Tory Government.
Displeasing people; pockets of disillusion; impatience and frustration.
These are not the hallmarks of this Labour Government.
They are the hallmarks of Government.
The test is to listen, adapt and move forward.
Up to 1997, do you know how many years of the 20th century Labour was in power with a substantial majority?
Nine. By the end of this Parliament, we will have doubled it.
We learnt the hard way.
But now we have to show that we have the capacity not only to learn but to transform, to show what a liberated modern social democracy can do.
We can do it. I'm an optimist.
Why?
Because there is change happening.
Ten years ago people asked would Labour ever win again.
Now, they ask it of the Tories.
Ten years ago, they asked if we were fit to manage the economy.
Now thanks to the vision and brilliance of Gordon Brown, we have succeeded beyond any previous Labour or Tory Government. Not by chance.
Every part of it - from the first years of discipline, through to Bank of England independence through to reform of tax and benefits to make work pay - was a bold choice.
The right-wing never deserved their reputation for economic competence.
And we've made sure they'll never have exclusive rights to it again.
Ten years ago, claims that the minimum wage would cost a million jobs were the centrepiece of John Major's election campaign: now it's the law, business and trade unions agree it, and the Tories have to pretend they were in favour of it all along. At our best when at our boldest.
For four elections, anyone who said investment before tax cuts was brave but doomed.
In 2001, we did it and it is those who oppose the investment who are on the run.
The New Deal was savaged by the Tories, challenged politically, challenged legally, challenged by business.
Now it's in its sixth year, over a million people have been helped by it and not one Tory candidate dares to stand up and say we should abolish it. At our best when at our boldest.
Remember how devolution would break-up Britain?
And now there is a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, the nationalists are running from their separatism and not a single party in Britain proposes going back. And in Northern Ireland, for all the difficulties, Republicans and Unionists sit in Government together and the principle of consent is accepted North and South on the island of Ireland for the first time in 80 years.
At our best when at our boldest.
And remember how for 100 years we tried to reform the House of Lords and now the reform is happening, the hereditary peers are leaving and the attack is that it doesn't go far enough?
The equal age of consent passed massively in the House of Commons.
The first black Cabinet Minister. Record numbers of women Cabinet Ministers.
Record numbers of women MPs.
From progress here to life and death, abroad, it is happening.
A month ago I visited Beira District Hospital in Mozambique. There are as many doctors in the whole of Mozambique as there are in Oldham. I saw four children to a bed, sick with malaria. Nurses dying of AIDS faster than others can be recruited. Tens of thousands of children dying in that country needlessly every year.
I asked a doctor: what hope is there? Britain is our hope, he said. Thanks to you we have debt relief. Thanks to you we have new programmes to fight AIDS and malaria. Thanks to you the docks at Maputo are being rebuilt and we can sell our goods abroad.
When you tire of knocking on the door, putting the leaflet in the envelope, wonder what its all about and what its all for, reflect on that doctor, feel proud of what you do, and understand that's what we elect a Labour government for.
We haven't just nailed the myths about Labour of old; we've created some legend of achievement about New Labour too.
We've been at our best when we've been at our boldest.
And now we need to be again.
And all it takes, is for us to do what we believe in.
We believe in a school system of equal opportunity for all. But we don't yet have it.
We believe in an NHS with equal access for all; but not all get it.
We believe in punishing the guilty and acquitting the innocent but it's not what happens.
We believe in ridding Britain of child poverty but children are still poor.
We believe in Europe but we're not yet at the centre of it.
There's nothing wrong with the old principles but if the old ways worked, they'd have worked by now.
If you believe in social justice, in solidarity, in equality of opportunity and responsibility, then believe in the reforms to get us there.
Now is the time.
To quicken the march of progress not mark time.
What started with the renewal of the Labour Party only ends with the renewal of Britain.
Pessimism or hope
Despair or confidence
Decline or renewal
At our best when at our boldest.
This is not the time to abandon our journey of modernisation but to see it through.
--- CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY ---
From Prime Minister, Tony Blair's speech to TUC conference in Blackpool, 10 September 2002:
"Tomorrow, September 11, is the anniversary of the worst terrorist act in history. Let us today, once again, remember and mourn the dead. Let us give thanks to the fire fighters, the police, the ambulance and medical services, the ordinary citizens of New York. Their courage was the best answer to the terrorists' cruelty. Terrorists can kill and maim the innocent, but they have not won and they never will.
"We should never forget the role played by trade unions in the struggle for justice. Today we welcome Wellington Chibebe of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. Your opposition to the regime of Mugabe is the ultimate riposte to his fraudulent nonsense about fighting colonialism. People here, including myself, fought the detestable apartheid system of South Africa and we know the difference between the cause of freedom and a leader abusing that cause to conceal incompetence and corruption on a catastrophic scale.
"We welcome, too, the Colombian CUT's Hector Fajardo. Your nation is fighting the ugly scourge of narco-terrorism, in which the drugs trade and terror destroy the life chances of a country. You have our solidarity in that struggle.
"Thank you also to the trade unions of Northern Ireland - who, throughout the worst and even at the best, are symbols of the non-sectarian future that Northern Ireland needs.
"Around the rest of world too, trade unions are at the forefront of campaigns to end child labour, to remove discrimination, to bring democracy in place of dictatorship.
"On September 11 last year, with the world still reeling from the shock of events, it came together to demand action. But suppose I had come last year on the same day as this year - 10 September. Suppose I had said to you: there is a terrorist network called Al Qaida. It operates out of Afghanistan. It has carried out several attacks and we believe it is planning more. It has been condemned by the UN in the strongest terms. Unless it is stopped, the threat will grow. And so I want to take action to prevent that.
"Your response and probably that of most people would have been very similar to the response of some of you yesterday on Iraq.
"There would have been few takers for dealing with it and probably none for taking military action of any description.
"So let me tell you why I say Saddam Hussein is a threat that has to be dealt with.
"He has twice before started wars of aggression. Over one million people died in them. When the weapons inspectors were evicted from Iraq in 1998 there were still enough chemical and biological weapons remaining to devastate the entire Gulf region.
"I sometimes think that there is a kind of word fatigue about chemical and biological weapons. We're not talking about some mild variants of everyday chemicals, but anthrax, sarin and mustard gas - weapons that can cause hurt and agony on a mass scale beyond the comprehension of most decent people.
"Uniquely Saddam has used these weapons against his own people, the Iraqi kurds. Scores of towns and villages were attacked. Iraqi military officials dressed in full protection gear were used to witness the attacks and visited later to assess the damage. Wounded civilians were normally shot on the scene. In one attack alone, on the city of Halabja, it is estimated that 5,000 were murdered and 9,000 wounded in this way. All in all in the North around 100,000 kurds died, according to Amnesty International. In the destruction of the marshlands in Southern Iraq, around 200,000 people were forcibly removed. Many died.
"Saddam has a nuclear weapons programme too, denied for years, that was only disrupted after inspectors went in to disrupt it. He is in breach of 23 outstanding UN obligations requiring him to admit inspectors and to disarm.
"People say: but containment has worked. Only up to a point. In truth, sanctions are eroding. He now gets around $3 billion through illicit trading every year. It is unaccounted for, but almost certainly used for his weapons programmes.
"Every day this year and for years, British and American pilots risk their lives to police the No Fly Zones. But it can't go on forever. For years when the weapons inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam lied, concealed, obstructed and harassed them. For the last four years there have been no inspections, no monitoring, despite constant pleas and months of negotiating with the UN. In July, Kofi Annan ended his personal involvement in talks because of Iraqi intransigence.
"Meanwhile Iraq's people are oppressed and kept in poverty. With the Taliban gone, Saddam is unrivalled as the world's worst regime: brutal, dictatorial, with a wretched human rights record.
"Given that history, I say to you: to allow him to use the weapons he has or get the weapons he wants, would be an act of gross irresponsibility and we should not countenance it.
"Up to this point, I believe many here in this hall would agree. The question is: how to proceed? I totally understand the concerns of people about precipitate military action. Military action should only ever be a last resort. On the four major occasions that I have authorised it as Prime Minister, it has been when no other option remained.
"I believe it is right to deal with Saddam through the United Nations. After all, it is the will of the UN he is flouting. He, not me or George Bush, is in breach of UN Resolutions. If the challenge to us is to work with the UN, we will respond to it.
"But if we do so, then the challenge to all in the UN is this: the UN must be the way to resolve the threat from Saddam not avoid it.
"Let it be clear that he must be disarmed. Let it be clear that there can be no more conditions, no more games, no more prevaricating, no more undermining of the UN's authority.
"And let it be clear that should the will of the UN be ignored, action will follow. Diplomacy is vital. But when dealing with dictators - and none in the world is worse than Saddam - diplomacy has to be backed by the certain knowledge in the dictator's mind that behind the diplomacy is the possibility of force being used.
"Because I say to you in all earnestness: if we do not deal with the threat from this international outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point. And I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and did nothing.
"I know this is not what some people want to hear. But I ask you only this: to listen to the case I will be developing over the coming weeks and reflect on it.
"And before there is any question of taking military action, I can categorically assure you that Parliament will be consulted and will have the fullest opportunity to debate the matter and express its view.
"On Kosovo, on Afghanistan, we did not rush. We acted in a sensible, measured way, when all other avenues were exhausted and with the fullest possible debate. We will do so again.
"But Saddam is not the only issue. We must restart the Middle East Peace Process. We must work with all concerned, including the US, for a lasting peace which ends the suffering of both the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and the Israelis at the hands of terrorists. It must be based on the twin principles of an Israel safe and secure within its borders, and a viable Palestinian state.
"This must go alongside renewed efforts on international terrorism. That threat has not gone away. I cannot emphasise this too strongly.
"Put it alongside India and Pakistan, climate change and world poverty, and it is a daunting international agenda. But the most difficult thing is to persuade people that all issues are part of the same agenda. A foreign journalist said to me the other day: 'I don't understand it Mr Blair. You're very Left on Africa and Kyoto. But you're very Right on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It doesn't make sense.'
"But it does. The key characteristic of today's world is interdependence. Your problem becomes my problem. They have to be tackled collectively. All these problems threaten the ability of the world to make progress in an orderly and stable way. Climate change threatens our environment. Africa, if left to decline, will become a breeding ground for extremism. Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction combine modern technology with political or religious fanaticism. If unchecked they will, as September 11 showed, explode into disorder and chaos."
From The Independent on 27 August 2002, Tony Blair interviewed by Ed Stourton for the BBC on where and when he heard about the events of September 11, 2001:
"I remember it very, very clearly obviously, because I was about to give the speech to the TUC in Brighton, and so I was preparing my speech and the television was on in the background. You saw the first plane crash, and then people came in and started to brief me on it. It became clear a short time afterwards that this was not a terrible accident but was almost certainly a terrorist incident, and then of course everything changed.
"I thought instinctively that it was going to be huge, that it would be a defining moment for American foreign policy, and their attitudes towards the world, but also that it presented a momentous challenge to the world at large. It was clear that it was directed at America as a symbol of the Western world and the values we held. There was no doubt in my mind that one, we had to stand very, very closely with America, that America should realise straight away that it wasn't alone in such a situation; and number two that we should regard this an act as if it was an attack on any of us, and all of us ...
"...I am often somebody who likes to see both sides of an issue and to feel my way consensually but there are moments - and you have got to recognise this in politics - where there is no meeting of minds...I am afraid that there is no point in mucking around with that situation. You either get them, or they get you."
On the 7th October 2001, the Prime Minister Tony Blair made a statement concerning military action against targets in Afghanistan:
Tony Blair: As you will know from the announcement by President Bush military action against targets inside Afghanistan has begun. I can confirm that UK forces are engaged in this action. I want to pay tribute if I might right at the outset to Britain’s armed forces. There is no greater strength for a British Prime Minister and the British nation at a time like this than to know that the forces we are calling upon are amongst the very best in the world.
They and their families are, of course, carrying an immense burden at this moment and will be feeling deep anxiety as will the British people. But we can take pride in their courage, their sense of duty and the esteem with which they’re held throughout the world. No country lightly commits forces to military action and the inevitable risks involved but we made it clear following the attacks upon the United States on September 11th that we would take part in action once it was clear who was responsible.
There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the mind of anyone who has been through all the available evidence, including intelligence material, that these attacks were carried out by the al-Qaeda network masterminded by Osama bin Laden. Equally it is clear that his network is harboured and supported by the Taliban regime inside Afghanistan.
It is now almost a month since the atrocity occurred, it is more than two weeks since an ultimatum as delivered to the Taliban to yield up the terrorists or face the consequences. It is clear beyond doubt that they will not do this. They were given the choice of siding with justice or siding with terror and they chose to side with terror.
There are three parts all equally important to the operation of which we’re engaged: military, diplomatic and humanitarian. The military action we are taking will be targeted against places we know to be involved in the operation of terror or against the military apparatus of the Taliban. This military plan has been put together mindful of our determination to do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties.
I cannot disclose, obviously, how long this action will last but we will act with reason and resolve. We have set the objectives to eradicate Osama bin Laden’s network of terror and to take action against the Taliban regime that is sponsoring it. As to the precise British involvement I can confirm that last Wednesday the US Government made a specific request that a number of UK military assets be used in the operation which has now begun. And I gave authority for these assets to be deployed. They include the base at Diego Garcia, reconnaissance and flight support aircraftand missile firing submarines. Missile firing submarines are in use tonight. The air assets will be available for use in the coming days.
The United States are obviously providing the bulk of the force required in leading this operation. But this is an international effort as well as UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada have also committed themselves to take part in the operation.
On the diplomatic and political front in the time I’ve been Prime Minister I cannot recall a situation that has commanded so quickly such a powerful coalition of support and not just from those countries directly involved in military action but from many others in all parts of the world. The coalition has, I believe, strengthened not weakened in the twenty six days since the atrocity occurred. And this is in no small measure due to the statesmanship of President Bush to whom I pay tribute tonight.
The world understands that whilst, of course, there are dangers in acting the dangers of inaction are far, far greater. The threat of further such outrages, the threat to our economies, the threat to the stability of the world.
On the humanitarian front we are assembling a coalition of support for refugees in and outside Afghanistan which is as vital as the military coalition. Even before September 11th four million Afghans were on the move. There are two million refugees in Pakistan and one and a half million in Iran. We have to act for humanitarian reasons to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Afghan people and deliver stability so that people from that region stay in that region. Britain, of course, is heavily involved in actually (indistinct) effort.
So we are taking action therefore on all those three fronts: military, diplomatic and humanitarian. I also want to say very directly to the British people why this matters so much directly to Britain. First let us not forget that the attacks of the September 11th represented the worst terrorist outrage against British citizens in our history. The murder of British citizens, whether it happens overseas or not, is an attack upon Britain. But even if no British citizen had died it would be right to act.
This atrocity was an attack on us all, on people of all faiths and people of none. We know the al-Qaeda network threaten Europe, including Britain, and, indeed, any nation throughout the world that does not share their fanatical views. So we have a direct interest in acting in our own self defence to protect British lives. It was also an attack (indistinct) just on lives but on livelihoods. We can see since the 11th of September how economic confidence has suffered with all that means for British jobs and British industry. Our prosperity and standard of living, therefore, require us to deal with this terrorist threat.
We act also because the al-Qaeda network and the Taliban regime are funded in large part on the drugs trade. Ninety per cent of all the heroin sold on British streets originates from Afghanistan. Stopping that trade is, again, directly in our interests.
I wish to say finally, as I’ve said many times before, that this is not a war with Islam. It angers me, as it angers the vast majority of Muslims, to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion and the acts of these people are wholly contrary to the teachings of the Koran.
These are difficult and testing times therefore for all of us. People are bound to be concerned about what the terrorists may seek to do in response. I should say there is at present no specific credible threat to the UK that we know of and that we have in place tried and tested contingency plans which are the best possible response to any further attempts at terror.
This, of course, is a moment of the utmost gravity for the world. None of the leaders involved in this action want war. None of our nations want it. We are a peaceful people. But we know that sometimes to safeguard peace we have to fight. Britain has learnt that lesson many times in our history. We only do it if the cause is just but this cause is just. The murder of almost seven thousand innocent people in America was an attack on our freedom, our way of life, an attack on civilised values the world over. We waited so that those responsible could be yielded up by those shielding them. That offer was refused, we have now no choice so we will act. And our determination in acting is total. We will not let up or rest until our objectives are met in full. Thank you.
Speech by Tony Blair, Prime Minister, Labour Party conference, Brighton 2001
--- CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY ---
In retrospect the Millennium marked only a moment in time. It was the events of 11 September that marked a turning point in history, where we confront the dangers of the future and assess the choices facing humankind.
It was a tragedy. An act of evil. From this nation, goes our deepest sympathy and prayers for the victims and our profound solidarity with the American people.
We were with you at the first. We will stay with you to the last.
Just two weeks ago, in New York, after the church service I met some of the families of the British victims.
It was in many ways a very British occasion. Tea and biscuits. It was raining outside. Around the edge of the room, strangers making small talk, trying to be normal people in an abnormal situation. And as you crossed the room, you felt the longing and sadness; hands clutching photos of sons and daughters, wives and husbands; imploring you to believe them when they said there was still an outside chance of their loved ones being found alive, when you knew in truth that all hope was gone.
And then a middle aged mother looks you in the eyes and tells you her only son has died, and asks you: why?
I tell you: you do not feel like the most powerful person in the country at times like that.
Because there is no answer. There is no justification for their pain. Their son did nothing wrong. The woman, seven months pregnant, whose child will never know its father, did nothing wrong.
They don't want revenge. They want something better in memory of their loved ones.
I believe their memorial can and should be greater than simply the punishment of the guilty. It is that out of the shadow of this evil, should emerge lasting good: destruction of the machinery of terrorism wherever it is found; hope amongst all nations of a new beginning where we seek to resolve differences in a calm and ordered way; greater understanding between nations and between faiths; and above all justice and prosperity for the poor and dispossessed, so that people everywhere can see the chance of a better future through the hard work and creative power of the free citizen, not the violence and savagery of the fanatic.
I know that here in Britain people are anxious, even a little frightened. I understand that. People know we must act but they worry what might follow.
They worry about the economy and talk of recession.
And, of course there are dangers; it is a new situation.
But the fundamentals of the US, British and European economies are strong.
Every reasonable measure of internal security is being undertaken.
Our way of life is a great deal stronger and will last a great deal longer than the actions of fanatics, small in number and now facing a unified world against them.
People should have confidence.
This is a battle with only one outcome: our victory not theirs.
What happened on 11 September was without parallel in the bloody history of terrorism.
Within a few hours, up to 7000 people were annihilated, the commercial centre of New York was reduced to rubble and in Washington and Pennsylvania further death and horror on an unimaginable scale. Let no one say this was a blow for Islam when the blood of innocent Muslims was shed along with those of the Christian, Jewish and other faiths around the world.
We know those responsible. In Afghanistan are scores of training camps for the export of terror. Chief amongst the sponsors and organisers is Usama Bin Laden.
He is supported, shielded and given succour by the Taliban regime.
Two days before the 11 September attacks, Masood, the Leader of the Opposition Northern Alliance, was assassinated by two suicide bombers. Both were linked to Bin Laden. Some may call that coincidence. I call it payment - payment in the currency these people deal in: blood.
Be in no doubt: Bin Laden and his people organised this atrocity. The Taliban aid and abet him. He will not desist from further acts of terror. They will not stop helping him.
Whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater.
Look for a moment at the Taliban regime. It is undemocratic. That goes without saying.
There is no sport allowed, or television or photography. No art or culture is permitted. All other faiths, all other interpretations of Islam are ruthlessly suppressed. Those who practice their faith are imprisoned. Women are treated in a way almost too revolting to be credible. First driven out of university; girls not allowed to go to school; no legal rights; unable to go out of doors without a man. Those that disobey are stoned.
There is now no contact permitted with western agencies, even those delivering food. The people live in abject poverty. It is a regime founded on fear and funded on the drugs trade. The biggest drugs hoard in the world is in Afghanistan, controlled by the Taliban. Ninety per cent of the heroin on British streets originates in Afghanistan.
The arms the Taliban are buying today are paid for with the lives of young British people buying their drugs on British streets.
That is another part of their regime that we should seek to destroy.
So what do we do?
Don't overreact some say. We aren't.
We haven't lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect.
Don't kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the guilty.
Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime.
State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they haven't responded.
Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could.
The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were going to die.
Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked.
They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?
There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror.
Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.
Any action taken will be against the terrorist network of Bin Laden.
As for the Taliban, they can surrender the terrorists; or face the consequences and again in any action the aim will be to eliminate their military hardware, cut off their finances, disrupt their supplies, target their troops, not civilians. We will put a trap around the regime.
I say to the Taliban : surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. It's your choice.
We will take action at every level, national and international, in the UN, in G8, in the EU, in NATO, in every regional grouping in the world, to strike at international terrorism wherever it exists.
For the first time, the UN Security Council has imposed mandatory obligations on all UN members to cut off terrorist financing and end safe havens for terrorists.
Those that finance terror, those who launder their money, those that cover their tracks are every bit as guilty as the fanatic who commits the final act.
Here in this country and in other nations round the world, laws will be changed, not to deny basic liberties but to prevent their abuse and protect the most basic liberty of all: freedom from terror. New extradition laws will be introduced; new rules to ensure asylum is not a front for terrorist entry. This country is proud of its tradition in giving asylum to those fleeing tyranny. We will always do so. But we have a duty to protect the system from abuse.
It must be overhauled radically so that from now on, those who abide by the rules get help and those that don't, can no longer play the system to gain unfair advantage over others.
Round the world, 11 September is bringing Governments and people to reflect, consider and change. And in this process, amidst all the talk of war and action, there is another dimension appearing.
There is a coming together. The power of community is asserting itself. We are realising how fragile are our frontiers in the face of the world's new challenges.
Today conflicts rarely stay within national boundaries.
Today a tremor in one financial market is repeated in the markets of the world.
Today confidence is global; either its presence or its absence.
Today the threat is chaos; because for people with work to do, family life to balance, mortgages to pay, careers to further, pensions to provide, the yearning is for order and stability and if it doesn't exist elsewhere, it is unlikely to exist here.
I have long believed this interdependence defines the new world we live in.
People say: we are only acting because it's the USA that was attacked. Double standards, they say. But when Milosevic embarked on the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo, we acted.
The sceptics said it was pointless, we'd make matters worse, we'd make Milosovic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went home, the policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed and one of the great dictators of the last century, will see justice in this century.
And I tell you if Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993, when a million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral duty to act there also. We were there in Sierra Leone when a murderous group of gangsters threatened its democratically elected Government and people.
And we as a country should, and I as Prime Minister do, give thanks for the brilliance, dedication and sheer professionalism of the British Armed Forces.
We can't do it all. Neither can the Americans.
But the power of the international community could, together, if it chose to.
It could, with our help, sort out the blight that is the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where three million people have died through war or famine in the last decade.
A Partnership for Africa, between the developed and developing world based around the New African Initiative, is there to be done if we find the will.
On our side: provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt; help with good governance and infrastructure; training to the soldiers, with UN blessing, in conflict resolution; encouraging investment; and access to our markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of preaching.
But it's a deal: on the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe. Proper commercial, legal and financial systems.
The will, with our help, to broker agreements for peace and provide troops to police them.
The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier.
We could defeat climate change if we chose to. Kyoto is right. We will implement it and call upon all other nations to do so.
But it's only a start. With imagination, we could use or find the technologies that create energy without destroying our planet; we could provide work and trade without deforestation.
If humankind was able, finally, to make industrial progress without the factory conditions of the 19th Century; surely we have the wit and will to develop economically without despoiling the very environment we depend upon. And if we wanted to, we could breathe new life into the Middle East Peace Process and we must.
The state of Israel must be given recognition by all; freed from terror; know that it is accepted as part of the future of the Middle East not its very existence under threat. The Palestinians must have justice, the chance to prosper and in their own land, as equal partners with Israel in that future.
We know that. It is the only way, just as we know in our own peace process, in Northern Ireland, there will be no unification of Ireland except by consent - and there will be no return to the days of unionist or Protestant supremacy because those days have no place in the modern world. So the unionists must accept justice and equality for nationalists.
The Republicans must show they have given up violence - not just a ceasefire but weapons put beyond use. And not only the Republicans, but those people who call themselves Loyalists, but who by acts of terrorism, sully the name of the United Kingdom.
We know this also. The values we believe in should shine through what we do in Afghanistan.
To the Afghan people we make this commitment. The conflict will not be the end. We will not walk away, as the outside world has done so many times before.
If the Taliban regime changes, we will work with you to make sure its successor is one that is broad-based, that unites all ethnic groups, and that offers some way out of the miserable poverty that is your present existence.
And, more than ever now, with every bit as much thought and planning, we will assemble a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition so that inside and outside Afghanistan, the refugees, 41/2 million on the move even before 11 September, are given shelter, food and help during the winter months.
The world community must show as much its capacity for compassion as for force.
The critics will say: but how can the world be a community? Nations act in their own self-interest. Of course they do. But what is the lesson of the financial markets, climate change, international terrorism, nuclear proliferation or world trade? It is that our self-interest and our mutual interests are today inextricably woven together.
This is the politics of globalisation.
I realise why people protest against globalisation.
We watch aspects of it with trepidation. We feel powerless, as if we were now pushed to and fro by forces far beyond our control.
But there's a risk that political leaders, faced with street demonstrations, pander to the argument rather than answer it. The demonstrators are right to say there's injustice, poverty, environmental degradation.
But globalisation is a fact and, by and large, it is driven by people.
Not just in finance, but in communication, in technology, increasingly in culture, in recreation. In the world of the internet, information technology and TV, there will be globalisation. And in trade, the problem is not there's too much of it; on the contrary there's too little of it.
The issue is not how to stop globalisation.
The issue is how we use the power of community to combine it with justice. If globalisation works only for the benefit of the few, then it will fail and will deserve to fail. But if we follow the principles that have served us so well at home - that power, wealth and opportunity must be in the hands of the many, not the few - if we make that our guiding light for the global economy, then it will be a force for good and an international movement that we should take pride in leading.
Because the alternative to globalisation is isolation.
Confronted by this reality, round the world, nations are instinctively drawing together. In Quebec, all the countries of North and South America deciding to make one huge free trade area, rivalling Europe. In Asia, ASEAN. In Europe, the most integrated grouping of all, we are now 15 nations. Another 12 countries negotiating to join, and more beyond that.
A new relationship between Russia and Europe is beginning.
And will not India and China, each with three times as many citizens as the whole of the EU put together, once their economies have developed sufficiently as they will do, not reconfigure entirely the geopolitics of the world and in our lifetime?
That is why, with 60 per cent of our trade dependent on Europe, three million jobs tied up with Europe, much of our political weight engaged in Europe, it would be a fundamental denial of our true national interest to turn our backs on Europe.
We will never let that happen.
For 50 years, Britain has, uncharacteristically, followed not led in Europe.
At each and every step. There are debates central to our future coming up: how we reform European economic policy; how we take forward European defence; how we fight organised crime and terrorism.
Britain needs its voice strong in Europe and bluntly Europe needs a strong Britain, rock solid in our alliance with the USA, yet determined to play its full part in shaping Europe's destiny.
We should only be part of the single currency if the economic conditions are met. They are not window-dressing for a political decision. They are fundamental. But if they are met, we should join, and if met in this Parliament, we should have the courage of our argument, to ask the British people for their consent in this Parliament.
Europe is not a threat to Britain. Europe is an opportunity.
It is in taking the best of the Anglo-Saxon and European models of development that Britain's hope of a prosperous future lies. The American spirit of enterprise; the European spirit of solidarity. We have, here also, an opportunity. Not just to build bridges politically, but economically.
What is the answer to the current crisis? Not isolationism but the world coming together with America as a community.
What is the answer to Britain's relations with Europe? Not opting out, but being leading members of a community in which, in alliance with others, we gain strength.
What is the answer to Britain's future? Not each person for themselves, but working together as a community to ensure that everyone, not just the privileged few get the chance to succeed.
This is an extraordinary moment for progressive politics.
Our values are the right ones for this age: the power of community, solidarity, the collective ability to further the individual's interests.
People ask me if I think ideology is dead. My answer is:
In the sense of rigid forms of economic and social theory, yes.
The 20th Century killed those ideologies and their passing causes little regret. But, in the sense of a governing idea in politics, based on values, no. The governing idea of modern social democracy is community. Founded on the principles of social justice. That people should rise according to merit not birth; that the test of any decent society is not the contentment of the wealthy and strong, but the commitment to the poor and weak.
But values aren't enough. The mantle of leadership comes at a price: the courage to learn and change; to show how values that stand for all ages, can be applied in a way relevant to each age.
Our politics only succeed when the realism is as clear as the idealism.
This Party's strength today comes from the journey of change and learning we have made.
We learnt that however much we strive for peace, we need strong defence capability where a peaceful approach fails.
We learnt that equality is about equal worth, not equal outcomes.
Today our idea of society is shaped around mutual responsibility; a deal, an agreement between citizens not a one-way gift, from the well-off to the dependent.
Our economic and social policy today owes as much to the liberal social democratic tradition of Lloyd George, Keynes and Beveridge as to the socialist principles of the 1945 Government.
Just over a decade ago, people asked if Labour could ever win again. Today they ask the same question of the Opposition. Painful though that journey of change has been, it has been worth it, every stage of the way.
On this journey, the values have never changed. The aims haven't. Our aims would be instantly recognisable to every Labour leader from Keir Hardie onwards. But the means do change.
The journey hasn't ended. It never ends. The next stage for New Labour is not backwards; it is renewing ourselves again. Just after the election, an old colleague of mine said: "Come on Tony, now we've won again, can't we drop all this New Labour and do what we believe in?"
I said: "It's worse than you think. I really do believe in it".
We didn't revolutionise British economic policy - Bank of England independence, tough spending rules - for some managerial reason or as a clever wheeze to steal Tory clothes.
We did it because the victims of economic incompetence - 15% interest rates, 3 million unemployed- are hard-working families. They are the ones - and even more so, now - with tough times ahead - that the economy should be run for, not speculators, or currency dealers or senior executives whose pay packets don't seem to bear any resemblance to the performance of their companies.
Economic competence is the pre-condition of social justice.
We have legislated for fairness at work, like the minimum wage which people struggled a century for. But we won't give up the essential flexibility of our economy or our commitment to enterprise.
Why? Because in a world leaving behind mass production, where technology revolutionises not just companies but whole industries, almost overnight, enterprise creates the jobs people depend on.
We have boosted pensions, child benefit, family incomes. We will do more. But our number one priority for spending is and will remain education.
Why? Because in the new markets countries like Britain can only create wealth by brain power not low wages and sweatshop labour.
We have cut youth unemployment by 75 per cent.
By more than any Government before us. But we refuse to pay benefit to those who refuse to work. Why? Because the welfare that works is welfare that helps people to help themselves.
The graffiti, the vandalism, the burnt out cars, the street corner drug dealers, the teenage mugger just graduating from the minor school of crime: we're not old fashioned or right-wing to take action against this social menace.
We're standing up for the people we represent, who play by the rules and have a right to expect others to do the same.
And especially at this time let us say: we celebrate the diversity in our country, get strength from the cultures and races that go to make up Britain today; and racist abuse and racist attacks have no place in the Britain we believe in.
All these policies are linked by a common thread of principle.
Now with this second term, our duty is not to sit back and bask in it. It is across the board, in competition policy, enterprise, pensions, criminal justice, the civil service and of course public services, to go still further in the journey of change. All for the same reason: to allow us to deliver social justice in the modern world.
Public services are the power of community in action.
They are social justice made real. The child with a good education flourishes. The child given a poor education lives with it for the rest of their life. How much talent and ability and potential do we waste? How many children never know not just the earning power of a good education but the joy of art and culture and the stretching of imagination and horizons which true education brings? Poor education is a personal tragedy and national scandal.
Yet even now, with all the progress of recent years, a quarter of 11 year olds fail their basic tests and almost a half of 16 year olds don't get five decent GCSEs.
The NHS meant that for succeeding generations, anxiety was lifted from their shoulders. For millions who get superb treatment still, the NHS remains the ultimate symbol of social justice.
But for every patient waiting in pain, that can't get treatment for cancer or a heart condition or in desperation ends up paying for their operation, that patient's suffering is the ultimate social injustice.
And the demands on the system are ever greater. Children need to be better and better educated.
People live longer. There is a vast array of new treatment available.
And expectations are higher. This is a consumer age. People don't take what they're given. They demand more.
We're not alone in this. All round the world governments are struggling with the same problems.
So what is the solution? Yes, public services need more money. We are putting in the largest ever increases in NHS, education and transport spending in the next few years; and on the police too. We will keep to those spending plans. And I say in all honesty to the country: if we want that to continue and the choice is between investment and tax cuts, then investment must come first. There is a simple truth we all know. For decades there has been chronic under-investment in British public services. Our historic mission is to put that right; and the historic shift represented by the election of June 7 was that investment to provide quality public services for all comprehensively defeated short-term tax cuts for the few.
We need better pay and conditions for the staff; better incentives for recruitment; and for retention. We're getting them and recruitment is rising.
This year, for the first time in nearly a decade, public sector pay will rise faster than private sector pay.
And we are the only major government in Europe this year to be increasing public spending on health and education as a percentage of our national income.
This Party believes in public services; believes in the ethos of public service; and believes in the dedication the vast majority of public servants show; and the proof of it is that we're spending more, hiring more and paying more than ever before.
Public servants don't do it for money or glory. They do it because they find fulfilment in a child well taught or a patient well cared-for; or a community made safer and we salute them for it.
All that is true. But this is also true.
That often they work in systems and structures that are hopelessly old fashioned or even worse, work against the very goals they aim for.
There are schools, with exactly the same social intake. One does well; the other badly.
There are hospitals with exactly the same patient mix. One performs well; the other badly.
Without reform, more money and pay won't succeed.
First, we need a national framework of accountability, inspection; and minimum standards of delivery.
Second, within that framework, we need to free up local leaders to be able to innovate, develop and be creative.
Third, there should be far greater flexibility in the terms and conditions of employment of public servants.
Fourth, there has to be choice for the user of public services and the ability, where provision of the service fails, to have an alternative provider.
If schools want to develop or specialise in a particular area; or hire classroom assistants or computer professionals as well as teachers, let them. If in a Primary Care Trust, doctors can provide minor surgery or physiotherapists see patients otherwise referred to a consultant, let them.
There are too many old demarcations, especially between nurses, doctors and consultants; too little use of the potential of new technology; too much bureaucracy, too many outdated practices, too great an adherence to the way we've always done it rather than the way public servants would like to do it if they got the time to think and the freedom to act.
It's not reform that is the enemy of public services. It's the status quo.
Part of that reform programme is partnership with the private or voluntary sector.
Let's get one thing clear. Nobody is talking about privatising the NHS or schools.
Nobody believes the private sector is a panacea.
There are great examples of public service and poor examples. There are excellent private sector companies and poor ones. There are areas where the private sector has worked well; and areas where, as with parts of the railways, it's been a disaster.
Where the private sector is used, it should not make a profit simply by cutting the wages and conditions of its staff.
But where the private sector can help lever in vital capital investment, where it helps raise standards, where it improves the public service as a public service, then to set up some dogmatic barrier to using it, is to let down the very people who most need our public services to improve.
This programme of reform is huge: in the NHS, education, including student finance, - we have to find a better way to combine state funding and student contributions - ; criminal justice; and transport.
I regard it as being as important for the country as Clause IV's reform was for the Party, and obviously far more important for the lives of the people we serve.
And it is a vital test for the modern Labour Party.
If people lose faith in public services, be under no illusion as to what will happen.
There is a different approach waiting in the wings. Cut public spending drastically; let those that can afford to, buy their own services; and those that can't, will depend on a demoralised, sink public service. That would be a denial of social justice on a massive scale.
It would be contrary to the very basis of community.
So this is a battle of values. Let's have that battle but not amongst ourselves. The real fight is between those who believe in strong public services and those who don't.
That's the fight worth having.
In all of this, at home and abroad, the same beliefs throughout: that we are a community of people, whose self-interest and mutual interest at crucial points merge, and that it is through a sense of justice that community is born and nurtured.
And what does this concept of justice consist of?
Fairness, people all of equal worth, of course. But also reason and tolerance. Justice has no favourites; not amongst nations, peoples or faiths.
When we act to bring to account those that committed the atrocity of 11 September, we do so, not out of bloodlust.
We do so because it is just. We do not act against Islam. The true followers of Islam are our brothers and sisters in this struggle. Bin Laden is no more obedient to the proper teaching of the Koran than those Crusaders of the 12th Century who pillaged and murdered, represented the teaching of the Gospel.
It is time the West confronted its ignorance of Islam. Jews, Muslims and Christians are all children of Abraham.
This is the moment to bring the faiths closer together in understanding of our common values and heritage, a source of unity and strength.
It is time also for parts of Islam to confront prejudice against America and not only Islam but parts of western societies too.
America has its faults as a society, as we have ours.
But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery.
I think of its Constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every citizen still a model for the world.
I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became Chief of their Armed Forces and is now Secretary of State Colin Powell and I wonder frankly whether such a thing could have happened here.
I think of the Statue of Liberty and how many refugees, migrants and the impoverished passed its light and felt that if not for them, for their children, a new world could indeed be theirs.
I think of a country where people who do well, don't have questions asked about their accent, their class, their beginnings but have admiration for what they have done and the success they've achieved.
I think of those New Yorkers I met, still in shock, but resolute; the fire fighters and police, mourning their comrades but still head held high.
I think of all this and I reflect: yes, America has its faults, but it is a free country, a democracy, it is our ally and some of the reaction to 11 September betrays a hatred of America that shames those that feel it.
So I believe this is a fight for freedom. And I want to make it a fight for justice too.
Justice not only to punish the guilty.
But justice to bring those same values of democracy and freedom to people round the world.
And I mean: freedom, not only in the narrow sense of personal liberty but in the broader sense of each individual having the economic and social freedom to develop their potential to the full. That is what community means, founded on the equal worth of all.
The starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of Northern Africa to the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: they too are our cause.
This is a moment to seize.
The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again.
Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.
Today, humankind has the science and technology to destroy itself or to provide prosperity to all.
Yet science can't make that choice for us.
Only the moral power of a world acting as a community, can.
"By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we can alone".
For those people who lost their lives on 11 September and those that mourn them; now is the time for the strength to build that community. Let that be their memorial.
--- CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY ---
Full text of the Prime Minister's speech to Parliament, 4th October 2001.
"I am grateful to you for recalling Parliament on a second occasion so that the House can consider developments since it last met. Then the scale of 11 September tragedy was still unclear. Even today we do not yet know the precise numbers of those feared dead. But a bleak picture has emerged: there are up to 7,000 feared dead, including many British victims and others from 70 different countries. Many were Muslims. It cannot be said too often: this atrocity appalled decent Muslims everywhere and is wholly contrary to the true teaching of Islam. And we condemn unreservedly racist attacks on British Muslims here, most recently at an Edinburgh Mosque.
These acts are without any justification whatever and the full force of the law will be used against those who do them.
I pay tribute again to all those in America who have been involved in dealing with the human consequences of the attacks. The rescue services and medical workers who worked tirelessly and with devotion in the most harrowing conditions imaginable. I pay tribute to our own consular staff in New York and London and the family counsellors and Metropolitan Police officers who have supported relatives of the victims. And, above all, to the relatives themselves. Those I met in New York, still uncertain finally of the fate of their loved ones, bore their grief with immense dignity which deserves the admiration of us all.
Since 11 September intensive efforts have taken place here and elsewhere to investigate these attacks and determine who is responsible. Our findings have been shared and co-ordinated with those of our allies, and are clear.
They are:
First, it was Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida, the terrorist network which he heads, that planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September; Second, that Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida were able to commit these atrocities because of their close alliance with the Taleban regime in Afghanistan which allows them to operate with impunity in pursuing their terrorist activity. I will later today put in the Library of the House of Commons a document detailing the basis for our conclusions. The document covers the history of Usama Bin Laden, his relations with the Taleban, what we know of the acts of terror he has committed; and some of what we know in respect of 11 September. I enter a major caveat, much of the evidence we have is intelligence and highly sensitive. It is not possible without compromising people or security to release precise details and fresh information is daily coming in. But I hope the House will find it useful at least as an interim assessment. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats have seen the full basis for the document on Privy Council terms. For myself and all other Government Ministers who have studied the full information, we have absolutely no doubt that Bin Laden and his network are responsible for the attacks on 11 September. That was also the unanimous view of the NATO members who were taken through the full facts on 2 October. Much more of the evidence in respect of earlier atrocities can be released in greater detail since it is already subject to court proceedings; and this in itself is powerful.
Indeed, there is nothing hidden about Bin Laden’s agenda. He openly espouses the language of terror; has described terrorising Americans as "a religious and logical obligation"; and in February 1998 signed a fatwa stating that "the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty".
As our document shows, he has been responsible for a number of terrorist outrages over the past decade.
The attack in 1993 on US military personnel serving in Somalia – 18 US military personnel killed.
In 1998, the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 224 people killed and over 4500 injured.
Attempted bombings in Jordan and Los Angeles at the turn of the millennium, thankfully thwarted.
The attack on the USS Cole nearly a year ago which left 17 crew members killed and 40 injured.
The attacks on 11 September bear all the hallmarks of a Bin Laden operation: meticulous long-term planning; a desire to inflict mass casualties; a total disregard for civilian lives (including Muslims); multiple simultaneous attacks; and the use of suicide attackers.
I can now confirm that of the 19 hijackers identified from the passenger lists of the four planes hijacked on 11 September, at least three of these hijackers have already been positively identified as known associates of Bin Laden, with a track record in his camps and organisation. The others are being investigated still.
Of the three, one has also been identified as playing key roles in both the East African Embassy attacks and the USS Cole attack.
Since the attacks, we have obtained the following intelligence: shortly before 11 September, Bin Laden told associates that he had a major operation against America under preparation; a range of people were warned to return to Afghanistan because of action on or around 11 September; and most importantly, one of Bin Laden’s closest lieutenants has said clearly that he helped with the planning of the 11 September attacks and has admitted the involvement of the Al Qaida organisation. There is other intelligence we cannot disclose of an even more direct nature indicating guilt.
The closeness of Bin Laden’s relationship with the Taleban is also plain. He provides the Taleban with troops, arms and money to fight the Northern Alliance. He is closely involved with the Taleban’s military training, planning and operations. He has representatives in the Taleban’s military command structure. Forces under the control of Usama Bin Laden have fought alongside the Taleban in the civil war in Afghanistan.
The Taleban regime, for its part, has provided Bin Laden with a safe haven within which to operate, and allowed him to establish terrorist training camps. They jointly exploit the Afghan drugs trade. In return for active Al Qaida support the Taleban allow Al Qaida to operate freely, including planning, training and preparing for terrorist activity. In addition they provide security for the stockpiles of drugs.
Mr Speaker, in the face of this evidence, our immediate objectives are clear. We must bring Bin Laden and other Al Qaida leaders to justice and eliminate the terrorist threat they pose. And we must ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism. If the Taleban regime will not comply with that objective, we must bring about change in that regime to ensure that Afghanistan’s links to international terrorism are broken.
Since the House last met, we have been working ceaselessly on the diplomatic, humanitarian and military fronts.
I can confirm that we have had initial discussions with the US about a range of military capabilities with which Britain can help and have already responded positively to this. We will consider carefully any further requests and keep the House informed as appropriate, about such requests. For obvious reasons I cannot disclose the exact nature of our discussions. But I am fully satisfied they are consistent with our shared objectives.
I believe the humanitarian coalition to help the people of Afghanistan to be as vital as any military action itself.
Afghanistan was in the grip of a humanitarian crisis even before the events of 11 September. Four years of drought, on top of over two decades of conflict, have forced millions of people to leave the country; and have left millions more dependent on international humanitarian aid.
Last week the United Nations launched an appeal for $584 million to meet the needs of vulnerable people in and around Afghanistan. The appeal covers the next six months.
The international community has already pledged sufficient funds to meet the most immediate needs. The British Government has contributed £25 million, nearly all of which has already been allocated to UN and other agencies. We have also made available a further £11 million for support for the poorest communities in Pakistan, especially those most directly affected by the influx of refugees.
I know President Bush will shortly announce details of a major US programme of aid.
I have been in detailed consultation with the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Ruud Lubbers and other leaders. Kofi Annan has now appointed Lakhdar Brahimi to be his high level coordinator for the humanitarian effort in and around Afghanistan. We will give Mr Brahimi all the support we can, to help ensure that the UN and the whole of the international community comes together to meet the humanitarian challenge.
Action is already in hand to cope with additional outflows of refugees. UNHCR are working with the governments of the region to identify sites for additional refugee camps. The first UNHCR flight of relief supplies, including tents donated by the British Government, arrived in Iran yesterday. A second flight will depart at the end of this week, carrying more tents, plastic sheeting and tarpaulins, so that we can provide essential shelter for refugees.
We are also stepping up the effort to get food into Afghanistan, before the winter snows begin. A UNICEF convoy carrying blankets and other supplies left Peshawar for Kabul on Tuesday. A World Food Programme convoy carrying over 200 tonnes of wheat arrived in Kabul on Monday. Further WFP convoys have left for Afghanistan from Pakistan and Turkmenistan.
We will do what we can to minimise the suffering of the Afghan people as a result of the conflict; and we commit ourselves to work with them afterwards inside and outside Afghanistan to ensure a better, more peaceful future free from the repression and dictatorship that is their present existence.
On the diplomatic front, over the past three weeks the Foreign Secretary and I have been in intensive contact with foreign leaders from every part of the world. In addition, the Foreign Secretary has visited the Middle East and Iran. I have visited Berlin, Paris and Washington for consultations with Chancellor Schroeder, President Chirac and President Bush respectively. Later today I will travel to Moscow to meet with President Putin.
What we have encountered is an unprecedented level of solidarity and commitment to work together against terrorism. This is a commitment that spans all continents, cultures and religions, reinforced by attacks like the one on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar which killed over 30 innocent people.
We have already made good progress in taking forward an international agenda. Last week the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1373. This makes it mandatory for all states to prevent and suppress terrorist financing and requires the denial of safe haven to who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts.
The European Union too has taken firm action. Transport, interior, finance and foreign ministers have all met to concert an ambitious and effective European response: enhancing police co-operation; speeding up extradition; putting an end to the funding of terrorism; and strengthening air security.
We are also looking closely at our national legislation. In the next few weeks, the Home Secretary intends to introduce a package of legislation to supplement existing legal powers in a number of areas. It will be a carefully-appraised set of measures: tough, but balanced and proportionate to the risk we face. It will cover the funding of terrorism. It will increase our ability to exclude and remove those whom we suspect of terrorism and who are seeking to abuse our asylum procedures. It will widen the law on incitement to include religious hatred. We will bring forward a bill to modernise our extradition law.
It will not be a knee-jerk reaction. But I emphasise we do need to strengthen our laws so that, even if necessary only in a small number of cases, we have the means to protect our citizens’ liberty and our national security.
We have also ensured, insofar as is possible, that every reasonable measure of internal security is being undertaken. We have in place a series of contingency plans, governing all forms of terrorism. These plans are continually reviewed and tested regularly and at all levels. In addition, we continue to monitor carefully developments in the British and International economy. Certain sectors here and around the world have inevitably been seriously affected, though I repeat the fundamentals of all the major economies, including our own, remain strong. The reduction of risk from terrorist mass action is important also to economic confidence as 11 September shows. So there is every incentive in this respect also, to close down the Bin Laden network.
Mr Speaker, three weeks on from the most appalling act of terrorism the world has ever witnessed.
The coalition is strong. Military plans are robust. The humanitarian plans are falling into place.
And the evidence against Bin Laden and his network is overwhelming.
The Afghan people are not our enemy. For they have our sympathy and they will have our support.
Our enemy is Usama Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network who were responsible for the events of 11 September. The Taleban regime must yield them up or become our enemy also. We will not act for revenge. We will act because for the protection of our people and our way of life, including confidence in our economy, we need to eliminate the threat Bin Laden and his terrorism represent. We act for justice. We act with world opinion behind us. And we have an absolute determination to see justice done, and this evil of mass terrorism confronted and defeated."
TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRIME MINISTER, MR TONY BLAIR, AND PRESIDENT PUTIN IN MOSCOW ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2001
PRESIDENT PUTIN
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We would like to briefly inform you on the results of our meeting. First of all I would like to thank very much the Prime Minister for his quick reaction and agreement to come to Moscow after the well known events of 11 September. We consider our continued contacts today as a follow-on to our contacts with the United States, with the European Community, the European Union, and Central Asian countries. All those who have decided that they will be on the side of fighting terrorism all over the world. And the fact that we have been able so expeditiously to communicate and meet once again proves a higher level of relations between the UK and Russia.
We have followed very carefully the recent developments in the United Kingdom, the positions that have been taken by the Prime Minister, and we believe that we can provide wholehearted support to those positions. Certainly we have touched on some of the issues of a bilateral nature. We will continue those discussions later during the night and those relate both to the economy and other bilateral issues. But again, I would like to repeat that the tone of our discussion and the relations that we have established have been such as to make me sure that the level of our relations will make it possible for us to address the most acute issues of today and first of all the problem of combating terrorism.
PRIME MINISTER
First of all can I express my thanks to President Putin for inviting me here and for seeing me so swiftly after the telephone conversation we had a few days ago. We have now met many times together, and even before 11 September there was a clear strengthening of relations between our two countries and also I believe between Russia and Europe and Russia and the United States of America.
The events of 11 September have given us a renewed sense of urgency. I would like to pay tribute to the strength and leadership of President Putin at this time and I believe that in part that is due to the experience of people here in Russia of the dangers of terrorism, not least the appalling terrorist act of 1999 in which several hundred people lost their lives, many here in Moscow. And the fact that Russia has shown its solidarity with the victims of 11 September is a sort of tremendous support, and indeed comfort at this time. But it is very much part of a changing set of relationships that is putting relations between Russia and Europe, Russia and the United States, Russia and Britain on a new footing for a new age. Today certainly we meet as two countries, not talking to each other out of necessity but working through problems in the spirit of friends and true partners. And for that I thank President Putin again for his leadership and the Russian people.
QUESTION
President Putin, at one of your previous meetings with Mr Blair in St Petersburg you spoke at great length about the danger of Islamist terrorism. I wonder if, with dreadful hindsight you think that perhaps the West were rather negligent in taking your warning seriously and whether in particular you have any independent contribution to make to the evidence still disputed by many that Osama bin Laden was actually responsible for the attacks on America.
PRESIDENT PUTIN
These are the sorts of things that we discussed with the Prime Minister during our first meeting in St Petersburg. I don’t believe that western leaders paid no heed or were indifferent to what I was saying. Well indeed it is probably nice to believe sometimes that a grief that has visited your neighbour may bypass you. And one wouldn’t want to think that this threat is of a global nature. And you are right, it is exactly these words that I told to America. I believe that the United Kingdom cannot be blamed or rebuked of such an approach. I am not saying this because Prime Minister Blair is my personal guest today. I am saying this because he was one of the leaders with Mr Schroeder who were very instrumental in making the adages of the western world thought Russia more benign. And it is because of the efforts of these two leaders, and not theirs alone, that the West has received in Russia a reliable partner that it can deal with, co-operate in countering the common threat. We know that there have been some temporary ups and downs in the Western economy, but I believe that given our albeit limited resources we can, and should, co-operate bilaterally with the Western countries and all those who want to co-operate with us.
As to the Russian approach and contribution to the common efforts of countries to fight terrorism, this was made public by me a few days ago in terms of our approach and our contribution. And this may lead to neutralise the most odious international terrorists. We don’t rule that out. As I said we can extend our co-operation in areas in excess and above those that I mentioned in my public statement, but this will certainly be dependent on the attitudes and position of other countries.
QUESTION (in Russian)
Now it is clear that the concerns expressed today and the actions that may be taken might result perhaps in further suffering of the people in Afghanistan. How can you respond to that?
PRIME MINISTER
First of all, I think it is important to recognise that we have to take action against those responsible for these terrorist atrocities, but in doing so we do not seek in any way to act against the Afghan people. On the contrary, it is important that as well as any action that is taken in respect of bin Laden or the Taliban regime that shelter him, we put together a humanitarian coalition also, to give help on the humanitarian side so that the suffering of the people is minimised and so that those that are refugees are taken care of and given shelter.
PRESIDENT PUTIN
First of all to the question whether the anti-terrorist coalition actions are going to be effective. We will be able to see that when such actions become a reality. At that time we will be able to make a judgement on whether they are effective or not. But there is one thing that I have no doubt about, they can be effective indeed. The foremost condition for that is the uniting of efforts of many countries in this endeavour and their willingness to work and combat this problem for a long time. As to the possible suffering of people that may occur as a result of those operations, this is something that we should certainly reckon with. But in saying so, I would like to draw your attention to a number of circumstances.
First, the Afghan people is already suffering under the yoke of the terrorist regime that has been imposed on it over the course of recent years. It is already suffering. Our principal goal is to rid the Afghan people of this suffering. It is clear that the terrorists have made the Afghanis hostages of their objectives. And those who will be engaged in the proposed actions will have to do their utmost, and I am sure they will do their utmost, in order to prevent sufferings and killings of innocent civilians. But if there are victims as a result of these operations, the blame for this should be squarely placed on the terrorists and not on the people who are fighting terrorism because it is the terrorists who have made the population a hostage of their objectives. And I certainly agree with the Prime Minister that we have to do everything that we can in order to provide assistance and do the rehabilitation effort vis-à-vis the Afghan people in terms of their economy, socially and in all that we can in order to bring things to normal. In other words, to provide humanitarian assistance in the broadest sense of the word.
QUESTION
I would like to ask the President please what is the latest information he has about the loss of the Siberian airliner and whether he is satisfied that there was no terrorist involvement in that.
PRESIDENT PUTIN
Well the final judgement and conclusion about the reasons and causes of the tragedy can only be made by experts and specialists after very careful study and analysis. I should tell you that our people here in this country have been very expeditious in dealing with this tragedy. We already have planes and ships on the site of the tragedy and they are doing everything they can in order to analyse the causes of this unfortunate event. Before such a thorough examination has been done, it would be premature to make any judgement on this score. As you know, I have issued a special decision establishing a special commission to investigate the causes of this accident and the Chairman of this commission is our Secretary of the Security Council, Mr Rushalov (phon.) and people from other agencies. And it will be up to them to carefully examine the facts and come up with their conclusion.
PRIME MINISTER
Can I just add one word on that which is simply to express my profound sympathy to the families of the victims of the air tragedy earlier today, and to give through President Putin my sympathy to the Russian people that were victims, and obviously to the Government and nation of Israel as well for the lives of those they lost in the tragedy earlier today.
QUESTION (In Russian)
I have a question both for Prime Minister Blair and President Putin. First of all, how do you really assess the level of relations between Great Britain – the United Kingdom – and Russia at this time. How have the recent developments impacted on them? And the last question is, have you finished your work for tonight, or are you going to continue?
PRESIDENT PUTIN
Well, I spoke about that before. I can only say that the history of our relations is quite long and certainly, as I said before, Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor Schroeder were one of the foremost proponents and initiators of expanding and bettering our relations, as a result of which the West has a more benign, perhaps, look at our country. And we certainly understand that these are only first steps. There is a lot to be done. There is no limit. That is the first question. And I can answer the second too. As to whether or not we have completed our work for today, I can tell you that no, we have not finished our agenda for today, and with the acceptance of the distinguished Prime Minister, we have decided that we should pursue this at my home over dinner.
PRIME MINISTER
First of all, can I say to you that I have now had, I think, eight different meetings with President Putin. We spoke together many, many times and I think that is a very good indication of the strengthening relationship, not just between Russia and Britain, but a strong personal relationship too, which I greatly value and I believe that something is happening in our world today that is immensely important. The Cold War is over. Many of the old difficulties of the past can be set aside. We have a real opportunity to forge new relationships and I think it is immensely important that we do so because we face common interests, and common problems today. And when we are battling something like the issue of international terrorism, but also on many other issues too, we need Russia there as a partner and a friend. And that is the relationship today, and I welcome that and from the very first meeting I had with President Putin in St Petersburg I recognised someone who had the vision and the imagination to set the past aside and build new relationships for the future and I think that is very important. And the fact that we have Russia today standing alongside the other countries of the world, including the United States of America, including all the countries of Europe, including Britain and giving its strong support to action against acts of terrorism that took place in the United States of America, that is living proof, visible proof, of the changed world in which we live. And I believe that we are only at the start of what we can gain from this new world. We have now got to take it further, deepen it further at every single level.
QUESTION (in Russian)
One more question again about this aircraft. There have been some reports that this aircraft was shot down by a Ukrainian missile. Is there any proof to that? What can you tell us about this?
PRESIDENT PUTIN
According to the information received from our Ukrainian colleagues, it is true that in the immediate vicinity of the area where the crash took place, some exercises were being conducted. But I can tell you that all the relevant services were immediately informed of that. And second that the weapons that were used in those exercises have such tactical characteristics that make it impossible for them to reach the air corridors through which this particular aeroplane was moving and therefore they were out of reach. We did not take part in those defence exercises, but our observers were there, and according to the information received from our Ukrainian partners things are as they are and we have already established military to military contacts between our Defence Ministers so I would ask you at this point not to add any sensationalism to this information but wait until we get the final results of the examination.