Howe criticizes arms-for-Iraq inquiry

[SIMONA de LOGU]

LONDON (UPI) -- Former Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe launched a
critical attack Wednesday on the integrity of a public inquiry set up to
investigate allegations that the British government in the 1980s helped
businesses circumvent guidelines restricting the sale of defense
technology to Iraq.
Called to give evidence before Lord Justice Richard Scott, Howe
accused the lawlord of ignoring official guidelines and acting as
``detective, inquisitor, advocate and judge.''
Reading from prepared notes, Howe said most public inquiries in which
he had participated allowed those being questioned to make their
statements in the presence of their legal counsels.
Howe said he felt the inability to consult an attorney during
questioning made those appearing before the inquiry reluctant to
cooperate fully.
At one point during Howe's 30-minute statement, Scott interrupted to
say he was not prepared to get into a debate because it would not be
profitable.
Scott's office later released a statement saying it would be
``ludicrous'' to allow legal counsel to each of the various witnesses
and those who might have an interest in such a complex case.
The two-page statement said it was also unclear on whose behalf Howe
was speaking -- the Foreign Office or the British government.
Addressing questions about the government position on the sale of
weapons and technology to Iraq and Iran during their war in the 1980s,
Howe said government guidelines were recommendations, not actual policy,
and carried no legal force.
``Nobody disputes they were policy guidelines, but they did not
constitute the policy,'' he said, ``They were not the end of all wisdom.
''
Howe said government policy on export controls was to balance
conflicting British interests. He said the guidelines were aimed at
helping ministers determine how best to achieve that goal.
He described the guidelines issued in 1984 on Iraq and Iran as a
``worthwhile improvement'' to the government's policy, but not a change
in policy.
In response to Scott's claim that the guidelines were presented to
lawmakers in such a way to make them believe they were binding and
actual government policy, Howe said the guidelines were more flexible
because they were not designed to give a detailed account of overall
government policy on the issue.
``It was a convenient way to present to the public how we approach
the matter,'' Howe said, ``The public presentation is not necessarily
the whole policy.''
The guidelines may have appeared more restrictive in their public
presentation than they were in theory because the government did not
want to give the impression that the guidelines could easily be
dismissed, Howe said.