Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
Early negotiations on a smarter sanctions resolution
294.  UK officials continued to work on a draft resolution (known informally as the
“Smart Sanctions” resolution) to reflect the new policy framework, based on a
new Goods Review List.
295.  The UK prepared a draft resolution for the P5 Political Directors meeting in New
York on 21 May.154 The UK intended that the draft resolution would:
allow the export to Iraq of all goods other than WMD and military items through
fast-track procedures;
introduce more tightly focused controls on “Iraq weapons” through agreement
on a “Controlled Goods List” of arms and items of WMD concern: the UK was
pressing the US not to insist on an “unreasonably long list”;
through agreement with Iraq’s neighbours, bring Iraq’s illegal oil exports within
the OFF programme; and
introduce strengthened monitoring of Iraq’s land, sea and air borders.
296.  Sir Jeremy Greenstock told the Inquiry that:
“The Council remained deeply divided between those states which remained highly
suspicious of Iraqi activity, with intelligence showing evidence of continued Iraqi
interest in materials for sophisticated weapons programmes (the US, the UK and
one or two other western or western-oriented members of the Security Council), and
Russia, France, China and many developing world or middle-ground members of
the Council, who opposed the continuation of sanctions short of convincing evidence
that Iraq was continuing to breach Security Council resolutions in a way which
threatened international peace and security.”155
297.  It proved impossible to reach agreement in the Security Council by the
deadline of 4 June.
298.  Mr Sawers advised Mr Blair at the end of May that there remained “big arguments
ahead” on the detail of any new arrangement, within the US Administration, the P5 and
the region.156 It would be surprising if an agreement could be reached in the Security
Council by early June. Mr Sawers asked: “Do you anyway want this to come to a head in
late May/early June? Wouldn’t it be better to let it slip a month or two?”157
299.  Mr Sawers also reported that there was a difference of view between Mr Cook and
the MOD on the utility of the NFZs, and suggested asking the MOD for a considered
view on the alternatives.
154  Minute Tanfield to Goulty, 18 May 2001, ‘Iraq Policy Review: Draft Rollover Resolution’.
155  Statement, 27 November 2009, pages 2-3.
156  Note Sawers to Prime Minister, [undated], [untitled].
157 As the June 2001 UK General Election would have prevented UK Ministers from taking an active role in
lobbying for the change.
248
Previous page | Contents | Next page