Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.8  |  Development of UK strategy and options, 8 to 20 March 2003
{{destroy all Al Samoud 2 missiles and components; and
{{account for the purpose of all UAV and RPV programmes.33
106.  The draft side statement was also sent to President Lagos.
107.  Sir David informed Dr Rice that Mr Blair was willing to consider a redraft of
operative paragraph (OP) 3 of the draft resolution (tabled by the UK, US and Spain
on 7 March), which “might read”:
“decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity unless by X date it
shows that it has demonstrated that it is co-operating fully, unconditionally and
immediately with its disarmament obligations under UNSCR 1441.”
108.  The decision on Iraq’s co-operation would be taken on the basis of Iraq’s response
to the six tests.
109.  Mr Blair wrote in his memoir that President Bush and his military were concerned
about delay:
“It [the proposal for tests/more time] was indeed a hard sell to George. His system
was completely against it. His military were, not unreasonably, fearing that delay
gave the enemy time – and time could mean a tougher struggle and more lives lost.
This was also troubling my military. We had all sorts of contingency plans in place
for what Saddam might do. He might set the oilfields on fire, release chemical, or
worse, biological material, or attack Israel. His past record gave us no confidence in
his trustworthiness or his humanity. There was both UK and US intelligence warning
us of the risk.
“Nonetheless I thought it was worth a try …
“I set out my case for delay in a Note to George. We then had a call. It was tricky but
I laid it on the line and reluctantly he agreed. We got the document prepared with the
Blix people. It had five crucial tests in it. It would, especially on the interview, have
flushed out the regime thoroughly on what they were hiding and on whether they
had any good faith.
“Chile and Mexico were prepared to go along, but only up to a point. Ricardo made
it clear that if there was heavy opposition from France, it would be tough for them to
participate in what would then be a token vote, incapable of being passed because
of a veto – and what’s more, a veto not by Russia, but by France.
“Unfortunately, the French position had, if anything, got harder not softer. They
were starting to say they would not support military action in any circumstances,
irrespective of what the inspectors found …”34
33  Letter Manning to Rice, 10 March 2003, [untitled].
34  Blair T. A Journey. Hutchinson, 2010.
419
Previous page | Contents | Next page