Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.5  |  Development of UK strategy and options, September to November 2002 –
the negotiation of resolution 1441
meant in our heads by that, but that’s the nature of a negotiation like that. You come
up with some language that can encapsulate both those things simultaneously, but it
doesn’t remove the ambiguity.”290
858.  Asked whether the French position had remained that the use of force could only
be authorised by a decision of the Security Council, Sir John replied that was essentially
the French position, but:
“They were a little bit wary about articulating that as clearly as they might have done,
and I think that’s because, like us, they had always had this concern, a broader
concern, not related to any particular situation, that they didn’t want to be in a
position where military action in the modern world could only be authorised by the
Security Council.”291
859.  Mr Blair’s statement of 8 November focused on the decision made by the UN
that Iraq must comply with its obligations, and the choice for Saddam Hussein of
whether to disarm willingly.
860.  Mr Blair also stated that he hoped that disarmament would be achieved
peacefully.
861.  In a statement issued on 8 November, Mr Blair expressed delight that the Security
Council had risen to the challenge and, by unanimously adopting resolution 1441, it had
“made clear beyond doubt” that Iraq had to comply with its obligations to the UN.292
862.  Mr Blair stated:
Iraq’s obligation was to co‑operate with the weapons inspectors. It was “not a
game of hide and seek, where the inspectors try their best to find the weapons
and Saddam does his best to conceal them”.
The “duty of co‑operation” meant “not just access but information. Failure to be
open and honest in helping the inspectors … is every bit as much a breach as
failure to allow access to sites.”
The survival of Saddam Hussein’s regime was “in his hands”. Conflict was “not
inevitable”. Disarmament was.
In the event of Saddam refusing to co‑operate or a breach, there would be
“a further UN discussion”. There was no “automatic trigger” in the resolution.
“But everyone now accepts that if there is a default … the international
community must act to enforce its will. Failure to do so would mean, having
stated our clear demand, we lacked the will to enforce it.”
290 Public hearing, 29 June 2010, pages 25‑26.
291 Public hearing, 29 June 2010, page 30.
292 The National Archives, 8 November 2002, PM statement on Iraq following UN Security Council
resolution.
353
Previous page | Contents | Next page