Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.6  |  Development of UK strategy and options, November 2002 to January 2003
724.  Dr ElBaradei stated that the presence of international inspectors in Iraq “continues
to serve as an effective deterrent to and insurance against resumption of programmes
to develop weapons of mass destruction, even as we continue to look for possible
past activities”.
725.  Dr ElBaradei concluded:
“… we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons
programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s … [O]ur work is
steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course … [W]e should
be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no
nuclear weapons programme. These few months … would be a valuable investment
in peace because they could help us avoid a war. We trust that we will continue
to have the support of the Council … to verify Iraq’s nuclear disarmament through
peaceful means and to demonstrate that the inspection process can and does work
as a central feature of the international nuclear arms control regime.”
726.  Sir Jeremy Greenstock reported that, in subsequent informal consultations of the
Council, there was general scepticism that Iraq had “co‑operated adequately”, but also
a desire for more time.245
727.  Sir Jeremy reported that Ambassador Negroponte had delivered a pre‑prepared
statement saying that there was nothing in either Dr Blix or Dr ElBaradei’s reports which
gave hope that Iraq ever intended to comply with resolution 1441 and that the time was
fast approaching when the Security Council would have to demonstrate it meant what it
had said.
728.  Sir Jeremy stated that the Council had heard “a catalogue of unresolved
questions”. The “onus was on Iraq to prove the zero it had declared” and to provide
“substantive evidence”. Iraqi co‑operation had been “limited and grudging” and
looked like “a carefully considered policy of withholding information and obstruction”.
UNMOVIC and the IAEA needed to conduct more intrusive inspections and “carry out
more productive interviews to unravel the facts”.
729.  At a later meeting, Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei had provided answers to specific
points raised in the informal discussion, including:
Dr Blix had complained about the number of Iraqi minders for inspections.
There had been demonstrations during inspections but UNMOVIC had not
been intimidated.
Dr Blix felt that there was a determination at a high level to co‑operate on
process but “on substance, Iraq simply said the outstanding questions were
nonsensical”. Unless that changed, he was “not optimistic of solutions”.
245  Telegram 152 UKMIS New York to FCO London, 28 January 2003, ‘Iraq: Informal Consultations
to Consider Blix and El‑Baradei Reports’.
129
Previous page | Contents | Next page