Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
a regime less intrusive than the last one.” After the adoption of the GRL, the prospect of
lifting sanctions would be less enticing for Iraq:
“A continuing threat of US action … was needed to influence Iraqi behaviour,
whatever some might think of the consequences of the threat.”
79.  A French official agreed, adding:
“… if the fear of US intervention receded, there would be no co-operation at all from
the Iraqis, which in turn would strengthen the hands of the hawks in Washington.”
80.  The personal view of the French official was:
“… we would be in exactly the same position on Iraq in five years’ time – and that
would represent the least bad option, given the regional instability that would ensue
from any military action.”
81.  The paragraph on France’s views of the UN authority for military action was drawn
to the attention of Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, with the comment that it was:
“An important statement from a Permanent Member of the UNSC.”41
Definition of the UK’s objective
82.  Mr Hoon advised Mr Blair on 31 May that he and Mr Straw had agreed a
preliminary UK objective to guide planning which, rather than calling directly for
the elimination of Iraq’s WMD capability, called on Iraq to abide by its international
obligations on WMD.
83.  The first meeting of the Pigott Group in late April considered how to define the
objective, or “end state” of a military operation.42 Mr Ricketts advised Mr Straw:
“As we found in the run-up to the Afghanistan operation, defining the objective of an
operation is crucial … The MOD had tried their hand at a definition of the ‘end-state’
which was discussed at length, and I undertook to produce a further version.
“I have now done so … it would be helpful to know whether the Foreign Secretary
thinks we are on the right lines. At this stage, it is only to inform MOD contingency
planning: at the right point, these issues would have to be negotiated carefully and
at a high level with the Americans, who will have their own priorities. My proposal
is as follows:
– ‘A stable and law-abiding Iraq, within its present borders, co-operating with the
international community, no longer posing a threat to global security or to its
neighbours, and abiding by its international obligations on control of its WMD.’”
41  Manuscript comment [Paul Berman] to AG, [undated], on Telegram 337 Paris to FCO London,
28 May 2002, ‘Iraq: Quai’s Views’.
42  Minute Ricketts to Private Secretary [FCO], 25 April 2002, ‘Iraq: Contingency Planning’.
18
Previous page | Contents | Next page