Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.5  |  Development of UK strategy and options, September to November 2002 –
the negotiation of resolution 1441
Warned Mr de Villepin not to make an issue of the “material breach” language
in OP1. That was “a matter of historical fact and, with the new OP10, no longer
permitted the one stage approach France had feared”.
Told Mr de Villepin that the French position was “a matter of trust for the UK as
well as the US. Villepin’s reassurances about France’s willingness to support
and participate in military action if justified had empowered Powell to get the
changes made in OP10. If France tried to get ‘material breach’ language out of
OP1, those in the [US] Administration who opposed the UN route would argue
that France could not be trusted on a second SCR.”
591.  Mr de Villepin was reported to have responded “somewhat half‑heartedly” that
“others in the Council opposed ‘material breach’ language … and that the SCR should
focus on the need for inspections rather than looking back”. He had not suggested it was
a French “red line”.
592.  Mr Straw concluded that, if President Chirac “were willing to sign up to the new
OP10 language, he would have more negotiating room … should he want to reach
a private agreement on how to move forward”.
593.  In a statement for the Inquiry, Sir Michael Wood wrote:
“Early the next morning (17 October) the Foreign Secretary ran through the new
OP10 with the French Foreign Minister, saying in this context that the US could not
accept any language requiring a further Security Council resolution but that they
accepted that a further meeting implied a second SCR whether moved by them
or other members of the Council.”190
Mr Blair’s meeting with Mr Straw and Mr Hoon, 17 October 2002
594.  Mr Blair discussed the latest developments on the UN negotiations and the
military options with Mr Straw, Mr Hoon and Adm Boyce on 17 October.191 Mr Powell,
Mr Campbell, Baroness Morgan, Sir David Manning and Mr Rycroft were also present.
595.  Mr Blair continued to take the position that a further resolution explicitly
authorising military action would not be needed in all circumstances.
596.  Mr Blair, Mr Straw and Mr Hoon concluded on 17 October that the only way
to keep the US on the UN route was if there was a clear understanding that, in the
event of a reported breach of the new UN resolution, action would be taken even
if a second resolution could not be agreed.
190 Statement, 15 March 2011, page 8.
191 Letter Rycroft to Sedwill, 17 October 2002, ‘Iraq: UN Route’.
307
Previous page | Contents | Next page