Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
“We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: if Saddam Hussein does not
fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead
a coalition to disarm him.”
742.  President Bush also announced that the US would ask the UN Security Council
to convene on 5 February to “consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance”; and that
Secretary Powell would “present information and intelligence about Iraq’s … illegal
weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links
to terrorist groups”.
Security Council, 29 January 2003
743.  Sir Jeremy Greenstock continued to advise that there was little support
in the Security Council for a second resolution.
744.  Sir Jeremy Greenstock advised that only four countries definitely supported a
second resolution and that:
“Things will not move in our direction without some fact or development to give
countries the grounds on which to change position, or at least give us more time
to … confirm the conclusion that Iraq will not co‑operate.”250
745.  Sir Jeremy Greenstock told the Security Council on 29 January that Iraq
was in material breach of resolution 1441 and the Council could not “simply tread
water”. It would have to “take tough decisions soon”.
746.  On 29 January, the Security Council met for a second time to discuss the reports
delivered by Dr Blix and Dr Elbaradei on 27 January.251
747.  Sir Jeremy Greenstock reported that the discussion was “a replay of earlier
positions”, and that “Almost every delegation” had welcomed Secretary Powell’s
intention to “provide evidence” on 5 February. Most delegations saw the presentation as
“feeding in to the inspections process”.
748.  Sir Jeremy told the Council that, in asking for more time, there was a need to
be realistic: “Time would not achieve anything without the co‑operation we expected.”
Iraq had: not given “access to its illegal WMD programmes”; “allowed omissions in the
declaration”; and “failed to co‑operate”. “The inescapable conclusion was Iraq was in
material breach of [resolution] 1441.”
250  Telegram 161 UKMIS New York to FCO London, 29 January 2003, ‘Iraq: Which Way Will the Votes
Stack Up?’
251  Telegram 167 UKMIS New York to FCO London, 30 January 2003, ‘Iraq: 29 January Security
Council Discussion’.
134
Previous page | Contents | Next page