Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
turn round the arguments.” Mr Straw was to go to New York “with the message from TB
that we needed to turn the clusters document to our advantage”.323
CABINET, 6 MARCH 2003
1030.  Mr Blair told Cabinet that the argument boiled down to the question
of whether Saddam Hussein would ever voluntarily co-operate with the UN
to disarm Iraq.
1031.  Mr Blair concluded that it was for the Security Council to determine whether
Iraq was co-operating fully.
1032.  Mr Blair explained to Cabinet on 6 March that Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei would
be reporting to the Security Council the following day.324
1033.  Dr Blix was proposing to put forward a document which analysed the outstanding
disarmament issues. It was important that the facts should be made public.
1034.  The UK was discussing an amendment to the draft resolution – “to encourage
support from those members who remained undecided” – with some Security Council
members. The support of Mexico and Chile “could be critical to the vote”. It was not clear
what Russia and France would do. The “argument boiled down to whether” Saddam
Hussein “would ever voluntarily co-operate with the United Nations to disarm Iraq.
Members of the Security Council needed to be persuaded on this point.”
1035.  Mr Blair also said that he had agreed with President Bush on the need for the UN
to be “heavily involved” in “the post-conflict situation, in the event that military action was
necessary”. They had also discussed the importance of moving the Middle East Peace
Process forward on the basis of a “Road Map”.
1036.  The points made in discussion included:
the amendment of the draft Security Council resolution should incorporate
a deadline “since the public attached importance to the inspection work”;
the “integrity and dignity” of the UN process was being “diminished” by the
“political arm-twisting” by some members;
reconstruction of Iraq would require a UN mandate, not just their involvement;
otherwise the right of Coalition forces to engage in reconstruction work would
be limited by their status as an occupation force;
the focus on Iraq’s WMD should be maintained, not “diverted to discovery
and destruction of ballistic missiles, albeit the latter could deliver toxic material
in their warheads”; and
323  Campbell A & Hagerty B. The Alastair Campbell Diaries. Volume 4. The Burden of Power: Countdown
to Iraq. Hutchinson, 2012.
324  Cabinet Conclusions, 6 March 2003.
364
Previous page | Contents | Next page