Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.7  |  Development of UK strategy and options, 1 February to 7 March 2003
836.  Sir Jeremy commented that: “Positions remain generally unchanged” but the
co‑sponsors had produced a “more effective line of argument than the opposition”.
837.  Following the meeting, details emerged of a letter from Iraq to Dr Blix confirming
“agreement ‘in principle’ to the destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles”. Sir Jeremy reported
that he had “tried to discount it in advance with the Council”. If Iraq’s “acceptance ‘in
principle’” did not turn into concrete destruction before 1 March, which Sir Jeremy
thought “unlikely”, that would be “a bonus”.
838.  Dr Blix told the UK Mission that he could and would make the “clusters”
document available for the Council meeting on 7 March. But preparation of the
work programme and key remaining tasks would not be ready by then.
839.  Dr Blix lunched with EU Heads of Mission in New York on 28 February.255
840.  The UK Mission reported that Dr Blix had made a number of points including:
Iraq “had not actively co-operated until recently”. It was now producing
documents, a list of participants in destruction activities in 1991, and digging
up R-400 bombs. But Iraq had not started to disarm, the picture on interviews
was “disappointing”, and the flow of documents was “limited”.
He shared the US view that it “was for Iraq to declare its WMD holdings and
show how it was disarming”. UNMOVIC was not a detective agency. There was
plenty Iraq could do to address allegations which were well known to Baghdad,
such as checkpoints for trucks and an inventory of underground facilities.
Iraq could have acted earlier. Iraq was not co-operating fully and actively.
Full co-operation should not take a long time. If UNMOVIC secured full
co‑operation, “verification would take neither years nor weeks but months”.
There had been no change of heart, just more activity. Iraq had attempted
to conceal things.
The debate was “somewhat over-focused on the outstanding questions identified
by UNSCOM”. It was not possible to prove a negative (Iraq’s claim that it had not
resumed any WMD programmes): “But Iraq could certainly make the negative
plausible (e.g. producing documents; opening underground facilities).” It could
“certainly do more on interviews”.
He thought there was increasing acceptance in the Council that he should
circulate UNMOVIC’s clusters of unresolved questions. But UNMOVIC should
not “grade” Iraq’s co-operation; that was “the responsibility of the Council”.
But producing the document would facilitate Iraq’s task.
He did not think he was bound to deliver the work programme required
by resolution 1284 “only on 27 March”. It would be “fairly short”, but the
Commissioners had still to take a view.
255  Email Thomson to Greenstock, 1 March 2003, ‘Iraq: Blix’.
329
Previous page | Contents | Next page