Previous page | Contents | Next page
1.2  |  Development of UK strategy and options, September 2000 to September 2001
255.  Ms Short’s Private Office wrote to Mr Sawers on 15 March recording that Ms Short
“regrets that DFID was not included”.139 She welcomed the thrust of the new policy, but
remained “concerned that insufficient weight had been given to … humanitarian needs”.
She also asked that, if the sanctions regime changed, any revised strategy should take
into account that: the UK could not “shrug off… responsibility” to relieve the suffering that
Saddam Hussein had caused; the UN might continue to have “an important role”; and
that provisions should be made for humanitarian assistance for the Kurds.
256.  Ms Short wrote to the Prime Minister on 1 April welcoming the review of the “old
sanctions policy which is widely discredited and is steadily eroding”, the proposed
refocusing on military controls, and that the OFF programme should end “except for
Kurds in northern Iraq”.140 Ms Short stated that:
“To counter [the] real risk that Saddam will neglect his people’s needs we
should promote openness and active role for UN agencies, Red Cross and
NGOs [non‑governmental organisations] in reporting on humanitarian situation.
[The] UK should be ready to play a leading role in holding Saddam to account.”
Activity in the No-Fly Zones
257.  Following the attacks on 16 February, US and UK aircraft carried out no
further attacks in the NFZs until 30 March.
258.  Mr Julian Miller, Mr Hoon’s Private Secretary from September 1999 to September
2001, wrote to Mr Sawers on 30 March:
“Although the operation of 16 February helped to reduce the qualitative threat level,
coalition aircraft have been threatened by AAA [anti-aircraft artillery] (and less often,
SAMs [surface-to-air missiles]) on almost every occasion that they have taken to
the air. It was against this background that US aircraft responded to Iraqi AAA this
morning. They released two weapons aimed at an air defence site in the southern
No-Fly Zone. Both missed their intended targets, landing in open ground without
causing collateral damage.
“The Defence Secretary is satisfied that action remains necessary to ensure that
the threat to our aircrew remains acceptable. Given that Saddam’s intent to attack
our aircraft appears unchanged, we can expect – provided that targets can be
identified and that the weather permits their engagement – to see further coalition
bombing activity. Any such action will, of course, be conducted within the existing
RO framework, with the authority for UK participation – within the carefully defined
parameters approved collectively by Ministers – delegated to military commanders.
139  Letter DFID [junior official] to Sawers, 15 March 2001, ‘Iraq: New Policy Framework’.
140  Letter Short to Prime Minister, 1 April 2001, ‘Iraq Policy Review’.
241
Previous page | Contents | Next page