3.7 |
Development of UK strategy and options, 1 February to 7 March
2003
798.
In a speech at
the American Enterprise Institute on 26 February, President
Bush
stated that
Saddam Hussein was “building and hiding weapons that could enable
him
to dominate
the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world”; and that the
US would
“not allow
it”.242
In
addition, Saddam Hussein had “close ties to terrorist
organizations,
and could
supply them with terrible means to strike” the US. The danger that
posed
“could not
be ignored or wished away” and “must be confronted”. The US
hoped:
“… that the
Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and
disarm,
fully and
peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by
force.
Either way,
this danger will be removed.
“The safety
of the American people depends on ending this direct and
growing
threat.
Acting … will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and
stability
of our
world … A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform
this
vital region,
by bringing hope and progress into the lives of
millions.”
799.
If it “must
use force”, the United States and “our coalition” stood ready to:
“help
the
citizens of a liberated Iraq”; “lead in carrying out the urgent and
dangerous work
of destroying
chemical and biological weapons”; “provide security against those
who
try to
spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial
integrity of Iraq”; and
“protect
Iraq’s natural resources from sabotage … and ensure those resources
are
used for
the benefit of the owners – the Iraqi people”.
800.
The US had “no
intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s
new
government”;
that choice belonged to the Iraqi people. But the US would
“ensure
that one
brutal dictator is not replaced by another”:
“All Iraqis
must have a voice in the new government and all citizens must have
their
rights
protected.
“Rebuilding
Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations
…
we will
remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more … in the
peace
that
followed a world war … we did not leave behind occupying armies, we
left
constitutions
and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in
which
responsible,
reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of
freedom
…
“… The
nation of Iraq – with its proud heritage, abundant resources and
skilled
and
educated people – is fully capable of moving towards democracy and
living
in freedom.”
801.
A new regime
in Iraq would:
“… serve as
dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other
nations
in the region
…
242
The White
House, 26 February 2003, President
discusses the future of Iraq.
321