Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation

However, it is almost beyond belief, but it is now clear that the British Government took no notice of this report.

Questioned by the BBC on the Today programme (20^th May 2001). Sir Jeremy Greenstock said:

Greenstock: ‘...My legal adviser attended the meeting between the Red Cross and Ambassador Bremer, and made sure that the page about the British actions were sent straight back to the Ministry of Defence. But the Red Cross never drew my attention personally to the passages about American abuse and I was not aware of it.

BBC: So the references to British abuse went straight to the MoD, and you had every reason to assume to a ministerial desk?

Greenstock: Yes, it went on the military net. We passed them across to our military colleagues in Baghdad, and we assumed that they were being dealt with, and in fact, as I understand, they were being dealt with... I'm talking about the end of February, into March.'

Whatever the Ministry of Defence did with Sir Jeremy’s messages, they allegedly did not penetrate to members of the British Government. Adam Ingram, Minister for the Armed Forces, told the House of Commons on 4^thMay 2004:

‘To date, I have received no such reports, but some may be in the process of being compiled.’

The Minister of Defence, Geoff Hoon, embroidered this answer, without throwing any further light on the question, on 10^th May 2004:

‘The interim ICRC report was not seen by Ministers until very recently. That is because it was an interim report to Ambassador Bremer, passed to the United Kingdom in strict confidence.’

In fact, there is no evidence that it was an interim report. Rather, it was a full and ‘culminating’ report, handed to both Bremer and Greenstock's representatives acting on behalf of the Coalition authorities.  Hoon continued:

‘The report to Ambassador Bremer was passed to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, then to the military representative in Iraq, and from there to the Permanent Joint Headquarters.’

As might be expected, Hoon’s account of events appears to diverge from that of the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, given below.

With greater candour, the Foreign Secretary returned to the Red Cross Report in the House of Commons the following day:

‘With the benefit of hindsight it should have been made available to ministers but as it happens it was not.’

The Prime Minister did not address the question of the Red Cross report until 12^th May:

‘I first saw it on Monday. I did not know of the allegations in the report at the time …The report was not passed to Ministers in February.’

Clearly aware of the confusing impressions given by assorted Ministers, the No. 10 apparatus arranged for a press briefing the day before the Prime Minister answered questions in the House:

‘Asked to clarify whether Sir Jeremy Greenstock had seen the ICRC report, the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman (PMOS) said meeting had been held when ICRC personnel had presented their report to Paul Bremer and British representatives, including Sir Jeremy’s legal advisers. As a result of that meeting, the report had been sent to the relevant people in Iraq to be dealt with. It was important for people to recognise that its contents were already being acted on, which was why it had been handled in the way that it had. Confusion had arisen because we had thought that Sir Jeremy himself had read the report, when in fact he hadn't. Asked if Sir Jeremy had notified Downing Street of the mistake, the spokesman said no. It had become apparent that there was a discrepancy between what the Defence Secretary had said yesterday and what the Foreign Secretary had said today. Yes, it was a slight mistake, but it did not change the substance of the matter one iota. Asked how the error had come to light, the spokesman said that as he understood it, a member of the Opposition had spotted the discrepancy today and had pointed it out. Asked at what stage Sir Jeremy had finally found out about the ICRC report, the spokesman said that Sir Jeremy had always been aware of the report. He underlined the fact that it had not contained any new allegations, about British troops that were not already being dealt with. That was why Ministers had not been informed of it. Put to him that Sir Jeremy would surely have warned the Prime Minister about it, the spokesman said that he was not aware of any such conversations.

Asked repeatedly if anyone had been aware of the substance of the allegations made by the Red Cross apart from Sir Jeremy Greenstock's legal advisers and officials in London who had received the report from Sir Jeremy's office, the spokesman pointed out that the Red Cross tended to deal with one country at a time when drafting reports. Both President Bush and the Prime Minister had made clear their shared view about the mistreatment of prisoners. It was for other Governments to deal with Red Cross reports relating to their own troops. Put to him that the ICRC's interim report in February had talked about 'Coalition Forces', the spokesman pointed out that the report had been presented to the Coalition Provisional Authority, not to the British Government. Officials had been asked by the CPA to deal with those concerns pertaining to British troops, which was precisely what they had done.

Asked if officials had been given a full copy of the ICRC report containing allegations about US troops as well as British forces, the spokesman said that officials had seen the report and had dealt with those concerns relating to British troops. Asked what British officials had known about other allegations, the spokesman said that the confidentiality under which the Red Cross operated meant that officials had responded in the way they had. The report was therefore a matter for the Red Cross. Asked if he was suggesting that Sir Jeremy Greenstock's legal advisers had decided not to pass on the concerns about US troops raised by the ICRC in their report because the Red Cross considered the confidential terms of their modus operandi as sacrosanct, the spokesman said that the officials had acted on their understanding of the Red Cross's very strict rules. We would welcome the publication of the ICRC's February and April reports. However, we had to abide by the wishes of the Red Cross.

Put to him repeatedly that there would be no breach of confidence were British officials to ask US officials what measures were being taken to prevent the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in the light of the fact that both sides had seen the same report, the spokesman said that the Red Cross gave us information relating to the conduct of our detention centres and the people we had detained. It was our responsibility to act within the parameters set out by the Red Cross. Asked if he was suggesting that we had not known about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US troops, the spokesman said that he was simply setting out the terms under which we operated when dealing with the Red Cross. Put to him that it seemed ridiculous that the coalition had gone into Iraq to stop the abuse and yet we were unable to do so all because of the Red Cross's commitment to confidentiality, the spokesman said that he was not a spokesman for the Red Cross. All he could do was explain the circumstances in which officials had found themselves. In answer to further questions, the spokesman took the opportunity to point out that action had been taken both by the British and the US as a result of the ICRC report. In the end that was what was most important. As the Prime Minister had underlined many times recently, the mistreatment of prisoners was wrong, was not to be condoned and was entirely counter-productive. That was the factual position.