3.7 |
Development of UK strategy and options, 1 February to 7 March
2003
•
Iraq had
appointed two Commissions, one to look for any remaining
proscribed
items and
one to look for any relevant documentation. A third Iraqi
initiative had
been the
provision of a list of personnel who had taken part in the
destruction
of proscribed
chemical items in 1991.
•
The Iraqi
papers presented at the meeting in Baghdad on 8 to 9 February
were
spontaneous
and “focused on central issues, but without any new
evidence”.
•
Iraq
claimed it was encouraging “persons to come for ‘private’
interviews
In
Baghdad”, but there was doubt that they “really feel they can talk
freely”.
Interviews
outside Iraq were “certainly an option”, but raised “difficult
issues”.
575.
The UK Mission
asked:
“If it
seems clear that many governments feel that enough time has not
yet
been given
for the option of disarmament through inspection, how
much
further time,
would they ask for inspections … before they
give up on this option
and how
‘active’ should Iraq be required to be?
“It does
not seem unreasonable to hold that 11 weeks of
inspections, which
have
barely come
up to full strength, and which come after a period of eight years
of
inspections
between 1991 and 1998 and four years of non-inspections between
the
end of 1998
and November 2002, is a rather
short period to
allow a final conclusion
that the
disarmament requirements cannot be fulfilled through this method.
What is
clear … is
that military and political pressure has been and remains
indispensable
to bring
about compliance. A slackening of it would, in all likelihood,
result in
less co‑operation.”
576.
The UK Mission
proposed that, in the circumstances, an “explicit
time line within
which
satisfactory co-operation and the required resolution of unresolved
disarmament
issues (or
‘key remaining disarmament tasks’) would be demanded”, would “not
seem
unreasonable”.
Addressing how long would be needed, it stated:
“Under
resolution 1284 (1999) 120 days were thought to be a time frame
within
which
‘progress’ on key remaining disarmament tasks would be. It is
evidently
a question
of political
judgement how much time should now be given under
resolution
1441 (2002). However, a
time frame should not be set without any regard
to what may
be achievable …”
577.
Addressing who
would judge “whether there
has been co-operation and
disarmament”, the
UK Mission stated:
“In the
last resort the Security Council must provide the answer, but it
seems likely
that the
Council would need to rely on a prior assessment by UNMOVIC
and
the IAEA.”
578.
Both questions
were “very broad” and judgements would be easier if there
were
“some
particular actions” or “benchmarks” which could be identified as
“indispensable
283