3.5 |
Development of UK strategy and options, September to November 2002
–
the
negotiation of resolution 1441
825.
Asked by
Mr George Osborne (Conservative) if UN‑authorised military
action
would
require a new resolution if Iraq was in material breach of the
resolution, Mr Straw
replied:
“The
processes set out in the Security Council resolution are
complicated … False
statements
or omissions or failure to comply, as set out in operative
paragraph 4,
will amount
to a material breach, and any reporting by the inspectors may turn
out
to show
a material breach. Then, under operative paragraph 12, the Security
Council
will meet
to discuss the matter. Any member of the Council can table a
resolution,
and it
remains to be seen whether the Security Council or individual
members
judge that
a further resolution is necessary to deal with the material breach
that
is presented
to them. It is complicated, but it is clear.”
826.
Asked if the
British Government intended to table a resolution seeking UN
support
for the use
of force in the event that Saddam Hussein failed to comply,
Mr Straw replied
that it was
“open to any member of the Security Council … to put forward a
resolution or
resolutions”
and that the UK reserved the right to do so. But he could not “at
this stage
anticipate
what could happen”.
827.
Asked by Ms
Ann Clwyd (Labour) about progress using international law to
set
up a
war crimes tribunal on Iraq, Mr Straw replied:
“We have
been making as much progress as we can in respect of indicting
war
criminals
in Iraq. I recognise my hon. Friend’s feeling that is not
sufficient and I
will
continue to pursue indictment in the United Kingdom … I speak to …
Attorney
General
about this from time to time. I shall be seeing him again this
afternoon for
a further
discussion. We certainly do not rule out an international tribunal
trying
Saddam
Hussein and others in his Government for war crimes.”
828.
In response to
other points raised by MPs, Mr Straw stated:
•
“… any
decisions that we make in respect of military action will be made
within
the context
of the body of international law, of which Security Council
resolutions
form part,
but not the whole.”
•
The “best
chance of a peaceful solution to the crises” was “through
unanimity
of the
international community and a clear and credible threat of the use
of
force” if
Iraq did not comply. He remained “quite optimistic” that the
process
could
work.
•
The text
did not define “material breach” because it was “a term of art
familiar
in international
law”.
•
In relation
to who was to decide if there was a material breach, it would
“become
patent
[sic] whether there has been a material breach”, and what followed
would
“in the
first instance be a matter for discussion within the Security
Council”.
•
If the
resolution was passed unanimously, there would be “clear deadlines
for
compliance”.
341