3.8 |
Development of UK strategy and options, 8 to 20 March
2003
opportunities
to delay. The future not only of the region but of UN authority
is
at stake.”
81.
Mr Michael
Ancram (Conservative), described the Iraq situation as outlined
by
Mr Straw
as “grim” and encouraged the Government, in response to the
serious
questions
and doubts about whether the case for action had been made, to
“ensure
that the
case for action continues to be made and strongly”, and to produce
more of
the information
it had for the British people to absorb.
82.
Asked by
Mr Ancram what the Government’s position would be in the
event
that three
Permanent Members of the Security Council vetoed a second
resolution,
Mr Straw replied:
“We have
made it clear throughout that we want a second resolution for
political
reasons,
because a consensus is required, if we can achieve it, for any
military
action. On
the legal basis for that, it should be pointed out that resolution
1441 does
not require
a second resolution …”
83.
Mr Michael
Moore (Liberal Democrat) asked Mr Straw to accept that there
were
“still
diplomatic and political options open to the international
community and that the
military
agenda must not dictate the calendar for inspections”; and if he
believed that
“war should
be the last resort”. Threatening to ignore the United Nations
undermined
the principles
of international law.
84.
Mr Straw
responded that war was and “should always be a last resort”. The
UK
was not
ignoring the UN. Mr Blair had “moved heaven and earth to
ensure that the
whole issue
of Iraq” was “dealt with through the United Nations”.
85.
Asked by
Mr Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru) to remind the House “exactly …
which
part of
resolution 1441 authorises war”, Mr Straw said:
“I am
delighted to do so. We start with paragraph 1, which says that the
Security
Council
‘Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations
under
relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 … in particular
through Iraq’s
failure to
co-operate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to
complete
the actions
required under paragraph 8 to 13 of resolution 687’.
“We then go
to paragraph 4, in which the Security Council ‘Decides that
false
statements
or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to
this
resolution
and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and co-operate
fully in
the
implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further
material breach of
Iraq’s
obligations’ – obligations of which it is now in breach. We turn to
operative
paragraph
13, in which the Security Council ‘Recalls, in that context, that
the Council
has
repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a
result of its
continued
violations of its obligations’.”
415