3.5 |
Development of UK strategy and options, September to November 2002
–
the
negotiation of resolution 1441
184.
On the
question “Why now?’”, Mr Blair stated:
“I agree I
cannot say that this month or next, even this year or next, Saddam
will
use his
weapons. But I can say that if the international community, having
made
the call
for his disarmament, now, at this moment, at the point of decision,
shrugs
its
shoulders and walks away, he will draw the conclusion dictators
faced with a
weakening
will always draw: that the international community will talk but
not act,
will use
diplomacy but not force. We know, again from our history, that
diplomacy
not backed
by the threat of force has never worked with dictators and never
will.
“If we take
this course and if we refuse to implement the will of the
international
community,
Saddam will carry on, his efforts will intensify, his confidence
will grow
and, at
some point in the future not too distant, the threat will turn into
reality. The
threat
therefore is not imagined. The history of Saddam and weapons of
mass
destruction
is not American or British propaganda. The history and the
present
threat are
real.”
185.
Mr Blair
said that Britain should care:
“Because
there is no way this man, in this region … could begin a conflict
using
such
weapons and the consequences not engulf the whole world, including
this
country.
That … is the reason the UN passed its resolutions. That is why it
is right
that the UN
Security Council again makes its will and its unity clear and lays
down
a strong new
UN resolution and mandate. Then Saddam will have the
choice:
comply
willingly or be forced to comply. That is why alongside the
diplomacy, there
must be
genuine preparedness and planning to take action if diplomacy
fails.
“Let me be
plain about our purpose. Of course there is no doubt that Iraq, the
region
and the
whole world would be better off without Saddam. Iraq deserves to be
led by
someone who
can abide by international law, not a murderous dictator; by
someone
who can
bring Iraq back into the international community where it belongs,
not …
languishing
as a pariah; by someone who can make the country rich and
successful,
not
impoverished by Saddam’s personal greed; and by someone who can
lead
a
government more representative of the country as a whole while
maintaining
absolutely
Iraq’s territorial integrity.
“We have no
quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, liberated from Saddam
they
could make
Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the Middle East. So the
ending
of this
regime would be the cause of regret for no one other than Saddam.
But
our purpose
is disarmament. No one wants military conflict. The whole
purpose
of putting
this before the UN is to demonstrate the united determination of
the
international
community to resolve this in the way it should have been
resolved
years ago:
through a proper process of disarmament under the UN.
Disarmament
of all
weapons of mass destruction is the demand. One way or another it
must
be acceded
to.”
231