Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.8  |  Development of UK strategy and options, 8 to 20 March 2003
114.  Mr Annan added:
“The members of the Security Council now face a great choice. If they fail to agree
on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security
Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired.
If, on the other hand, they can … address this threat in a united manner and ensure
compliance with their previous resolutions, then the Security Council’s authority will
be enhanced, and the world will be a safer place.
“… Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. What happens there will have profound
implications … for other issues of great importance … The broader the consensus
on Iraq, the better the chance that we can come together again and deal effectively
with other burning conflicts, starting with the one between Israelis and Palestinians.
Only a just resolution of that conflict can bring peace and stability in the region.
“… the success or failure of the international community in dealing with Iraq will
crucially affect its ability to deal with … conflicts …”
115.  Mr Annan concluded:
“However this conflict is resolved, the United Nations will remain as important as it
is today.
“We have seen in recent months what an immense significance States and people
around the world attach to the legitimacy provided by the … Security Council, and
the United Nations, as the common framework for securing the peace. As they
approach their grave decision, I must solemnly urge all members of the … Council
to keep this in mind, and to be worthy of the trust in them that the world’s peoples
have shown.”
116.  Asked whether an attack on Iraq without a second resolution would be a breach of
the UN Charter, Mr Annan responded:
“… the Charter is very clear on circumstances under which force can be used. I think
the discussion … is to ensure that the … Council, which is the master of its own
deliberations, is able to pronounce itself on what happens. If the US and others were
to go outside the Council and take military action it would not be in conformity with
the Charter.”
President Chirac’s interview, 10 March 2003
117.  Sir John Holmes, the British Ambassador to France, reported on 10 March
that, after the debate in the Security Council on 7 March, France believed it had the
momentum.36 The press and public were firmly behind President Chirac. France was
36  Telegram 123 Paris to FCO London, 10 March 2003, ‘Iraq: French Reaction to 7 March Debate’.
421
Previous page | Contents | Next page