Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.6  |  Development of UK strategy and options, November 2002 to January 2003
route we should not rule out the possibility of military action without a second
resolution. Voting decisions in the Security Council could be driven by domestic
politics, not the demands of the international situation.”
557.  Mr Straw added that:
“In his recent contacts with the Muslim and Arab world, all could see the benefit of
Saddam Hussein’s demise. He had utterly rejected the notion that we were hostile
to Islam … Saddam Hussein had attacked his own people and his neighbours – all
of whom were Muslims.”
558.  Ms Short told the Cabinet that “keeping to the United Nations route would hold the
Government’s support together. She had been reviewing humanitarian scenarios for Iraq
and concluded that extra resources would be required, given the other humanitarian
priority of Southern Africa.”
559.  Ms Short added that the possibility “of chemical and biological weapons being used
inside Iraq, and their effect on local civilians”, was a “particularly worrying scenario”.
The involvement of the United Nations would be “essential” for the management of the
aftermath of military action: it would “provide legitimacy for the political and economic
reconstruction of Iraq, including the use of oil revenues. Work on the aftermath should
be taken forward urgently.”
560.  Points made during the discussion were:
Communication “needed to be improved, on the basis of a core script”.
The message was “complex but should start from first principles; part of the
message was that the policy flowed from our own national interest and respect
for international law”. A “small proportion of the population would always be
opposed to military action, the political battle was for the centre ground which
could be won by argument”.
Although Mr Blair, Mr Straw and Mr Hoon were “best able to speak from an
informed position, since they had access to the intelligence, Cabinet members
more generally needed to speak up for the Government’s policy on Iraq”.
The “leadership of the United States was not widely trusted” in the UK “but
President Bush’s resolve was weakening the Iraqi regime”.
“[T]he inspectors had only recently started their work and it was unreasonable
for opponents to assert that the absence of evidence so far meant that military
action was unjustified; once evidence of weapons of mass destruction was
produced, the public mood would change dramatically”.
Maintaining internal cohesion within the UK “was important, not least in respect
of the Islamic community”.
“[P]ushing the Middle East Peace Process forward remained an important part
of our policy, as was stability in the region”.
99
Previous page | Contents | Next page