Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.6  |  Development of UK strategy and options, November 2002 to January 2003
A second UN resolution would be the “Basis for this approach”. It would
“transform the politics in the UK, Europe and the wider world” and it “might even
produce an implosion in Iraq”.
It would “take an effort to get the nine positive votes needed”.
Moderate Arabs might support military action “when the time comes”, but they
would need “a second resolution and wider international support for force, as
well as being seen to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to climb down”.
All the trends pointed to “a crunch time around end March”. The FCO did not
see how a second resolution could be obtained “in the next few weeks, absent
a dramatic new fact”.
The UK was with the US “100% on the goal; full disarmament by force and
regime change if necessary. But we have to contrive circumstances in which
we can carry a broad coalition and domestic opinion with us.”
Working with the UN would “produce a huge prize” in relation to rebuilding
Iraq with international support “which allows us to exit”, sending a “powerful
message” to other “would be proliferators”, and that domestic opinion would
be “more convinced by the legal case”. That was “worth taking time over”.
There was merit in the Saudis’ idea for Arab League pressure on Saddam
to go and the idea of a “UN trusteeship” was “worth close examination”.
An overall “winning concept” was needed which “should embrace both military
action and ‘day‑after’ administration in Iraq”. It would be “pointless and
damaging to win war and lose peace”.
It would be “irresponsible to abandon Iraq quickly after toppling Saddam”.
The “risk of civil war would be real” and “Iraq’s neighbours would get dragged
in, creating instability in the whole region”.
Coalition Forces would “not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives
are regarded with huge suspicion. The Iraqis … want us gone quickly. Our
occupation and administration of Iraq will become more unpopular and its
awfulness more debatable, the longer it continues.”
The “Blunt fact” was “that in those circumstances any reforms are unlikely
to stick. Iraqis will need legitimate international presence holding the ring
while they themselves set up new, Iraqi, structures.”
The period of “government by military coalition” should be kept “as short
as possible” and an “international administration with UN blessing”
introduced “quickly”.
Restoring the oil production would be “an immediate challenge”. The oil
sector would “need some technology and a lot of capital”. The US and UK
should “encourage an open investment regime and a level playing field for
foreign companies”.
The UK media and Parliament had “not yet focused on day‑after questions.
But it would be very difficult to sustain a UK contribution to day‑after if our
157
Previous page | Contents | Next page