Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.6  |  Development of UK strategy and options, November 2002 to January 2003
702.  In his report to the Security Council on 27 January, Dr Blix rehearsed the
disarmament process since 1991 and identified three “important questions” for the
Security Council:
“[H]ow much [prohibited material and activity] might remain undeclared and
intact from before 1991”?
“[W]hat, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the
inspectors left”?
How to prevent “any weapons of mass destruction be[ing] produced or procured
in the future”?243
703.  Dr Blix reported on UNMOVIC’s activities and gave an assessment of the extent
of Iraq’s co‑operation with those activities, including its declaration of 7 December 2002.
704.  Dr Blix stated that UNMOVIC shared “the sense of urgency felt by the [Security]
Council to use inspection as a path to attain, within a reasonable time verifiable
disarmament of Iraq”. UNMOVIC’s capability was “growing”. It had 260 staff members
of whom 100 were inspectors. It had conducted about 300 inspections at more than
230 sites, of which 20 were sites which had not been inspected before. A training
programme in Vienna would create a pool of 350 qualified experts from which inspectors
could be drawn.
705.  Dr Blix reported: “It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided
in principle to provide co‑operation on process, namely access.” Iraq had “on the whole
co‑operated rather well so far … access has been provided to all sites that we wanted
to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt”. There had, however, been “some
problems” in two areas: Iraq’s refusal to guarantee the safety of U2 flights to provide
aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections; and helicopter operations,
although that had been “solved”. There had also been “some recent disturbing incidents
and harassment”.
706.  Dr Blix stated that an Iraqi decision to provide co‑operation on substance was
“indispensible” to bring “the disarmament task to completion”. OP9 of resolution 1441
required Iraqi co‑operation to be “active”. It was “not enough to open doors”. Inspection
was “not a game of ‘catch as catch can’. Rather … it is a process of verification for the
purpose of creating confidence.”
707.  Dr Blix reported: “In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, Iraq’s declaration
contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998
and onward. This is welcome.”
243  UN Press Release, 27 January 2003, Security Council briefed by Chief UN Weapons Experts on First
60 days of Inspections in Iraq (SC/7644).
125
Previous page | Contents | Next page