Previous page | Contents | Next page
1.2  |  Development of UK strategy and options, September 2000 to September 2001
within the P5 on a package of measures would “require some painful adjustments for
ourselves and, even more so, for the Americans”.
70.  The new US Administration was expected to carry out a full policy review.
Mr Cook advised:
“We need to get in early and be prepared to press them hard. Their first instincts
will be to look at tougher measures e.g. tighter sanctions, military action, greater
emphasis on regime overthrow. None of these will have any credible support. Our
pitch should be to persuade the US of the unattractiveness of these options and
then convince them that SCR 1284 best serves our interests.”
71.  On Mr Blair’s concerns over the humanitarian situation, Mr Cook advised:
“With the ‘Oil-for-Food’ programme likely to be worth US$16bn this year, the
situation on the ground is starting to improve. This has taken some of the sting out
of the anti-sanctions campaign. But no matter how big the ‘Oil-for-Food’ programme
may become, it is cumbersome and bureaucratic and relies on Iraqi co-operation.
It will never be able to redress the deterioration of Iraq’s infrastructure, the
impoverishment of the middle classes, and the stifling of normal economic activity.”
72.  Mr Cook concluded:
“Containment through implementation of SCR 1284 remains the best option for now.
To make this achievable we will need to convince the US that this best serves our
objectives and that we should work to agree an implementation package which will
unite the P5. The status quo is unsustainable and other options are unattractive.”
73.  Mr Ross told the Inquiry that the “ambiguities” referred to by Mr Cook related to the
final operative paragraphs of resolution 1284, which were “very complicated and … set
out a really tortuous route of how the inspectors go back in”.44
74.  Mr Ross commented that, although the UK was “quite happy with that rather
tortured route”, it wanted P5 unity and “if the Russians and French said they wanted …
clarification, then we were prepared to have that discussion”.
Initial discussions with the new US Administration
75.  According to published US accounts, Iraq was not seen as one of the highest
priorities for the incoming Bush Administration.45
76.  As Section 1.1 describes, a number of senior US politicians had been calling for
tougher action on Iraq since 1998. Some of those politicians became senior members
of President Bush’s team.
44  Public hearing, 12 July 2010, pages 35-36.
45  Woodward B. Plan of Attack. Simon & Schuster UK, 2004; Haass RN. War of Necessity,
War of Choice: A Memoir of two Iraqi Wars. Simon & Schuster, 2009.
205
Previous page | Contents | Next page