Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.4  |  Development of UK strategy and options, late July to 14 September 2002
would be your view. I would check with you as soon as possible. The second part of
the draft resolution was an integral part of the strategy.”
491.  Dr Rice told Sir David that “‘speaking very frankly’, there was a timing problem”.
The timetable he had set out “risked running well into next year before we could clear
the decks for military action (assuming Saddam’s continued obstruction)”.
492.  Sir David told Dr Rice that the US and UK should refuse to accept the:
“… ideal, but too leisurely, UNSCOM timetable. Once we had a resolution stipulating
the return of the inspectors, we should get teams in quickly to look at carefully
chosen targets. We should insist that they tackled the job right away. [Dr] Blix could
build up to full strength in slower time.”
493.  Dr Rice also said that the US was looking at giving the inspectors a Security
Council label, which Sir David resisted because it would “look restrictive and alienate the
wider UN membership”. It might be possible to associate the Security Council with the
teams, and that “could be advantageous” if it was “sold” to Russia “as a way of ensuring”
it was “fully consulted and implicated”.
494.  Dr Rice said she would feed Sir David’s views into the White House debate and
asked for Mr Blair’s views by the end of the day.
495.  Sir David commented:
“The pressure on Bush to try a quick fix through the ‘material breach ploy’ will be
Cheney’s attempt to rewrite the Camp David conclusions. I pushed back hard and
made it clear that this would not run.”
496.  Sir David subsequently discussed the issues with Mr Blair who:
“… emphasised the need to play Iraq cleverly. We must look reluctant to use force,
making it clear that we saw the current situation as a challenge to the credibility
of the UN, and to the international community. You [Mr Blair] were increasingly
convinced that, in the end, people would come round to accepting the need
to deal with Saddam, if we had made full and willing use of the UN route. You
were confident that we could get the Security Council behind us once we had
demonstrated clearly that Saddam remained in violation. But if we appeared to be
riding roughshod over the UN or taking it for granted, opinion would be very difficult
to shift. We should move step by step. Once we had a new resolution … we would
be putting the onus on Saddam as Bush wanted. But this would only work if the
Americans resisted the Cheney temptation to go to the UN with what amounted
to a take it or leave it resolution, and with the clear intention of early resort to
military force.”
177
Previous page | Contents | Next page