Previous page | Contents | Next page
13.1  |  Resources
Minister and the Cabinet and that there would be no financial barrier to us doing
what was necessary to be done.121
182.  Mr Blair described the Government’s planning for a post‑Saddam Iraq in his
14 January 2011 statement to the Inquiry. He wrote that, on funding:
“… the Chancellor [Mr Brown] had throughout made it clear resources would not
be an obstacle. The Treasury had made certain calculations of the cost both of the
initial action and the aftermath. The Chancellor was present at Cabinet meetings in
the run‑up to the conflict. Throughout he made it clear resource was not a constraint.
Subsequently he was part of the War Cabinet. Of course the Treasury queried and
questioned costings. They always did. But at no point did anyone say to me: the
Treasury are stopping us doing what need. So I see in evidence to the Inquiry that
resource issues were being raised with some frustration by officials. I can only say
that had such frustrations been raised with me, I would have acted on them and
I believe the Chancellor would have been fully supportive.”122
Estimates and allocations for non‑military activities
Humanitarian assistance and reconstruction
183.  A Treasury official sent Mr Brown a paper on the global, regional and local (Iraqi)
economic impact of “war” in Iraq on 6 September 2002.123 The official’s analysis of the
global economic impact of war is described earlier in this Section.
184.  As part of his analysis of the local (Iraqi) economic impact, the official assessed
the contribution that the IMF, the World Bank, bilateral donors, the UN and the Paris
Club (through debt relief) had made to meeting the “post‑war challenge” in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), East Timor and Afghanistan, under five headings:
reconstruction; institution‑building; economic stabilisation; economic transition; and
peacekeeping.
185.  The official concluded that the cost of “putting a country back on its feet” could
be high. The FRY had already received US$10bn in support (excluding IMF support).
Iraq could be “even more expensive”, given:
the possibility that a conflict could cause significant damage, and the existing
poor state of Iraq’s infrastructure;
the need to stabilise the economy, including by addressing Iraq’s huge external
debt;
121 Public hearing, 5 March 2010, pages 25‑26.
122 Statement, 14 January 2011, pages 15‑16.
123 Email Treasury [junior official] to Bowman, 6 September 2002, ‘What Would be the Economic Impact of
a War in Iraq?’ attaching Paper Treasury, September 2002, ‘What Would be the Economic Impact of War
in Iraq?’.
473
Previous page | Contents | Next page