The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
authority
to use force … which will be fully uncovered once that
Council
discussion
has taken place”; and
•
“What
happens if a second Resolution is vetoed?”21
75.
The document
appears to have drawn on the analysis in the FCO paper
of 15 November.
76.
On the second
issue, the author wrote:
“If this
[the argument that 1441 contains a conditional authority to use
force] has
merit (and
the most we can hope for in the absence of an express Chapter
VII
authorisation
is a reasonable argument) it would be helpful to know that
now.
We would
not have to impale ourselves and Ministers on the difficult point
of what
happens if
the US/UK try and fail to get an express
authorisation.
“… we think
London seriously needs to consider revising its thinking on
1441.
“… from the
point of view of OP4 the question is ‘What does Iraq have to do to
put
itself
beyond the protection of the law? At what point does its conduct
amount to
material
breach?’ Innocent until proved guilty.
“But if you
come at it through OPs 1 and 2 the question is ‘When has Iraq
blown
its last
chance? (regardless of whether OP4 is ever breached)’.
Compliance
with OP4 is
strictly irrelevant: Iraq is guilty but released on a suspended
sentence/
parole.
This seems to us to have huge presentational angles – as well as
whatever
legal
deductions can be made. If we are
not careful, we are in danger of losing
the key
advantage of the resolution and turning a provision which we
thought
of deleting as
unnecessary into the main operational paragraph of the text
…”
77.
Someone in
No.10 wrote: “Is this, tho’ a hidden trigger? (We and the US denied
that
there was
one in 1441.)”22
78.
On what would
happen in the event of a veto, the author of the document
wrote
that this
was:
“… probably
too difficult at this stage – everything depends on the circs
…
But knowing
the answer to the legal implications of 1441 … would either (i)
leave us
no worse
off than we are – if the AG thinks the argument doesn’t run or (ii)
radically
improve the
situation if the AG thinks we have a case.”23
21
Paper,
[unattributed and undated], ‘Background on Material
Breach’.
22
Manuscript
comment [unattributed], 20 November 2002, on Paper, [unattributed
and undated],
‘Background
on Material Breach’.
23
Paper,
[unattributed and undated], ‘Background on Material
Breach’.
18