Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.5  |  Development of UK strategy and options, September to November 2002 –
the negotiation of resolution 1441
647.  Lord Goldsmith explained that his telephone call to Mr Straw had been “prompted”
when he had learned of Mr Blair’s statement to President Bush (on 14 October) that he
would join the US in acting without a second Security Council resolution:
“I thought that such action by the UK would be unlawful and I felt strongly that there
had to be recognition within government of the constraints under which we were
acting, and we should not lead the US to believe that we would take action … I knew
too that if we boxed ourselves into a corner that would make my task when I came
to advise on the effect of the resolution more difficult.”209
648.  Lord Goldsmith confirmed that Mr Straw had persuaded him not to provide a note
of advice until he (Lord Goldsmith) had seen Mr Blair.210 Mr Straw had said that there
might be circumstances in which the UK could proceed without a second resolution, for
example if Russia exercised a veto unreasonably. Lord Goldsmith wrote that although he
“was not persuaded by that example … it did make sense to him to have a discussion
with the Prime Minister … before putting his advice in writing”.
649.  Intense discussions on the elements of a draft resolution continued.
650.  Reporting a discussion on 16 October, Sir Christopher Meyer wrote that Mr Sandy
Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, thought that an attack on Iraq
would be “very risky” and might destabilise a number of countries in the region. In
addition, he “thought that, whatever the scenario, the British Government has got itself
into the position where it would go with the US whatever the circumstances. ‘The die
is cast for the UK.’”211
651.  Sir Christopher also reported that Mr Berger could envisage a situation where
UNMOVIC might find “something nasty” and the US “would want to go to war”, but
others on the Security Council would say that it “showed inspections were working and
that they should continue”.
652.  Sir David Manning commented to Mr Powell that that was “an inherent risk in the
UN route”; and that: “Other routes were even riskier.”212
653.  Mr Blair and Mr Annan discussed the need to bring the discussions on a
new resolution to a successful conclusion for all concerned on 17 October.213 They
agreed that: “If the UN handled this well, it would emerge stronger, and reinforce the
international rule of law.”
209 Statement, 4 January 2011, paragraph 2.3.
210 Statement, 4 January 2011, paragraph 2.8.
211 Letter Meyer to Manning, 17 October 2002, ‘Iraq: Berger’s Views’.
212 Manuscript comment Manning to Powell, 18 October 2002, on Letter Meyer to Manning,
17 October 2002, ‘Iraq: [US individual’s] Views’.
213 Letter Wechsberg to McDonald, 17 October 2002, ‘Iraq: Prime Minister’s Telephone Call
with UN Secretary General’.
315
Previous page | Contents | Next page